Micromax Informatics Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson

$~2&25 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

.+ FAO(OS)(COMM) 89/2017 & CM Nos.14999-15001/2017 MICROMAX INFORMATICS LIMTED Appellant versus TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET L M ERICSSON Respondent , + FAO(OS) (COMM) 54/2017 & CM No.8544/2017 MICROMAX INFORMATICS LIMITED Appellant versus TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET L M ERICSSON Respondent Presence:

Mr.Arvind Nigam, Sr.

Adv.

with Mr.Ashok Aggarwal, Mr.Jayant Mehta, Mr. Shubham Aggarwal and Ms.Pallavi Verma, Advs. for the petitioner Mr.C.S.Vaidyanathan and Ms.Pratibha M.Singh, Sr. Advocates with Ms.Saya Chaudhary Kapur, Mr.Ashutosh Kumar, Mr.Nikhil Chawla, Mr.Adithya Jayaraj, Mr. Saksham Garg and Mr.Devanshu Khanna, Advs. for the respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA

ORDER

% 03.05.2017 Counsel for the plaintiff/respondents objects to the rnaintainability of the present appeals in view of the orders that are proposed.

In view of the ultimate order made, the Court does not propose to rule on it and leaves the question open. These two appeals challenge orders by the learned Single Judge, in a pending suit CS(OS) 442/2013 renumbered as CS(OS) (COMM) 115/2017.

Both are in respect of orders of the Single Judge, upholding the Registrar's orders accepting the bank guarantees furnished by the plaintiff i.e. Ericsson. The appellant-defendants FAO(OS) (COMM) 89/2017 & conn.

By:AMULYA

argue that the Registrar General's orders and those of the Single Judge rejecting the chamber appeals, overlooked important material circumstances such as the fact that the bank guarantees were conditional in point of time and that they also contained objectionable terms. The plaintiff on the other hand urges that the terms of the bank guarantee are similar to those accepted during the pendency of the suit.

They rely upon previous orders of the Registrar General dated 29.1.2016, which had accepted guarantees containing identical terms. The submissions made by the appellant and the grievance which essentially pertains to the conditions spelt out in the guarantee with respect to time, this Court is of the opinion having regard to the past conduct of the parties the apprehensions articulated are not merited. Yet at the same time to ensure that there is no lapse, at least with respect to the validity of the guarantees, a direction is issued to the Registry to list the suit before the concernedroster Judge, at least a month before the expiry of the validity of the bank guarantees that have been furnished so far, for appropriateorders towards ensuring that fresh bank guarantees are brought on record. The appeals are disposed of in above terms.

Order dasti under signature of the Court Master. S.RAVINDRABHAT, J YOGESH KHANNA, J MAY 03, 2017A^LD FAO(OS)(COMM)89/2017&conn.

•