RIPAN WADHWA Vs. SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Order, I shall dispose off the Defendant's/Judgment Debtor's application for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 19.2.1996 (IA No. 10507/01); application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the application (IA No. 10508/01) and application under Section 151 of the CPC for stay of execution proceedings (IA No. 10509/01).

(2.) This Suit for permanent injunction restraining passing off, rendition of accounts of profits, deliver up, etc. was filed in 1994. Summons/notices were despatched in August, 1994 and were served in that very month, both by registered A.D. post as well as through the Baliff. On the second date of hearing, i.e. on 1.1,1994, the Defendant was represented by counsel who also appeared on 29.11.1994, 23.3.1995 and 15.9.1995. On these dates, the hearing was adjourned on the statement that the parties were endeavouring to compromise their disputes. There was no appearance on behalf of the Defendant on 27.11.1995 and when the case was listed before the Court thereafter on 12.2.1996, the Defendants were Set ex-parte, as there was no representation on their behalf once again. The Suit was decreed on 19.2.1996. On 8.11.2001, notice of all these three applications was ordered Pleadings have been completed and I have heard learned counsel for the parties in detail.

(3.) The contention of the applicants, who are Judgment Debtors, is that they became aware of the decree passed ex-parte against it "only in the first week of October when it received the notices issued by the Hon'ble Court dated 18.9.2001 in the execution proceedings (Ex.No.128/2001) moved by the Decree-Holder against the applicant". This statement is not correct since it is the admitted case of the applicant that they have received the summons and notices of the Suit in August, 1994 itself. It has been averred that the then General Manager (Tax Department), who was also looking after the legal affairs of the applicant, did not convey the receipt of the notice to the applicant and, instead, gave oral instructions to a counsel who appeared on its behalf. Secondly; it has also been pleaded that "on oral instructions of Mr. A.K. Aggarwal, the counsel appearing for the applicants side informed the Hon'ble Court on 29.11.1994 that the matter was likely to be compromised". It has next been pleaded that the applicant shifted its office in 1996 from Vipro Pali, East Mumbai to Andheri, East Mumbai. Mr. A.K. Aggarwal was asked to resign in 1999, as his services were found to be unsatisfactory. In the meanwhile, Mr. Vijay Shah had been employed as Senior Executive (Legal)in the year 1997. These facts are repeated in all the applications which have been vehemently opposed by the Plaintiff/Decree-holder.