M/S Anexa Home Appliances INDIA PVT. LTD vs. M/S Lion Services LTD
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2026
The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 19.03.2026 passed by learned District Judge, Commercial Court-09 (Central District), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commercial Court’) in Misc. DJ:-856/2025, whereby the appellant’s application, under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’) for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 15.12.2023 passed in CS (Comm.) 2553/2022 titled M/s Lion Services Ltd. vs. M/s Anexa Home Appliances India Pvt. Ltd., was rejected.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant argued that the Commercial This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2026 at 11:30:56
FAO (COMM) 96/2026 Court had rejected the appellant’s application essentially being swayed by the fact that the Fixed Deposit Receipt (hereinafter referred to as ‘FDR’) which the appellant had produced before the Court contained the same old address, upon which the summons had been issued and served.
Learned senior counsel contended that said FDRs were got prepared earlier, whereafter the appellant changed its address, but omitted to get such change of address reflected in the bank records, including the contentious FDRs.
Learned senior counsel further submitted that in all other records, including GST registration, the appellant’s address was shown as per the new address, which was obtaining, prior to the institution of the suit as well as issuance of summons. And therefore, the service of summons at the address given in the suit was not proper. He contended that the affidavit of service, which the plaintiff had filed was also incorrect, rather false.
Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the submissions so made by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. During the course of arguments she submitted that the plaintiff has been pursuing the litigation for long and has incurred considerable time and energy and therefore, in case, the Court feels persuaded to grant indulgence to the appellant, a heavy cost be imposed and the Commercial Court be directed to decide the suit expeditiously with a corresponding direction to the appellant-defendant to deposit the decretal amount in the Court, so that in case, the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff is decreed, its execution does not become a nightmare, as the appellant-defendant has been changing its address in order to avoid payments and to frustrate the decree.
Having heard rival parties at some length, this Court is of the view that This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2026 at 11:30:56
FAO (COMM) 96/2026 had the summons been really served, the litigant would not have taken the risk of suffering an ex parte decree for such a large amount. This Court finds the plea taken by the appellant to be correct on record inasmuch as on lease deed, appellant’s GST Registration Number etc, and on other documents other than the one mentioned in the FDRs and in the plaint new address of the appellant is present.
The service of summons, which as per records, was refused; in the facts of the present case, could not have been taken as deemed service or sufficient service.
Be that as it may. What the appellant is ultimately seeking is, an opportunity of hearing, which it has been deprived of, may be because of its own fault or negligence. But, not on account of any malafide.
We are, therefore, persuaded to allow the present appeal; which we hereby allow.
The impugned order dated 19.03.2026 passed by the Commercial Court is thus, quashed and set aside. The application dated 12.11.2025 under Order IX Rule 13, CPC filed by the appellant/applicant is allowed, the ex parte proceedings drawn against the appellant and consequential judgment and decree dated 15.12.2023 passed by the Commercial Court are set aside and it is hereby ordered that:- (i) The appellant shall pay a cost of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent-plaintiff within 15 days from today. (ii) Upon cost of Rs 50,000/- being paid, the appellant shall be free to withdraw the FDRs which it had tendered before the Commercial Court. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2026 at 11:30:56
FAO (COMM) 96/2026 (iii) The appellant shall furnish auto-renewable interest bearing FDR(s) to the tune of Rs.38,06,949/- drawn in the name of the appellant in the concerned Commercial Court on or before 10.10.2026. (iv) The appellant shall file its written statement within 30 days, in any case before 10.10.2026; the same shall be taken on record, only when the FDR of Rs. 38,06,949/- has been furnished. (v) The Commercial Court shall decide the suit as early as possible, preferably before 30.06.2027. (vi) In case, the appellant-defendant fails to furnish the FDR of Rs.38,06,949/- within the time stipulated and to pay the cost of Rs.50,000/- as indicated above, the present order shall stand automatically recalled and the decree passed by the Commercial Court shall stand revived.
The appeal along with pending applications is disposed of accordingly. DINESH MEHTA, J. RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. AUGUST 4, 2026 kk This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2026 at 11:30:56
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.