$~O-53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 138/2025 ICREON COMMUNICATIONS PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Aakriti Vohra, Ms. Roopali Gupta, Ms. Megha Dugar and Ms. Shruti Pandey, Advs. versus MR HEMANT SHUKLA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv with Mr. Manik Gupta and Mr. Mohd. Tanvir Ali, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 29.10.2025 1. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have made their submissions. 2. Ms. Akriti Vohra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after making brief submissions, confines her relief to the extent of placing on record the stand taken by the respondent in paragraph nos. 1 and 2 of the additional reply. 3. Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel for the respondent, submits that there is no question of resiling from the stand which has already 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 01/11/2025 at 11:51:25 been taken in the reply as well as in the additional reply filed by the respondent. 4. At this stage, the paragraph nos. 1 and 2 of the additional reply can be looked into and the same are extracted as under: “1. In respect of para 21 of the petition it is stated by the respondent categorically that Half Price Books, Full Beauty Brand, Mason Company, Curio and Slumberland Furniture are not the clients of the respondent and have never been the clients of the respondents Nor has the respondent contacted these clients for the respondent to do business with them. Therefore, the question of poaching any client of the petitioner does not arise. 2. In para 21 it is also stated "that the respondent has published a list of clients that the respondent/ or the aforesaid six employees have allegedly serviced or are allegedly servicing which entities are admittedly the clients of the petitioner company in the reply the respondent states as under:” 5. If the averments made by the respondent is considered in the right perspective, it would clearly indicate that the respondent has taken a categorical position that Half Price Books, Full Beauty Brand, Mason Company, Curio and Slumberland Furniture are not the clients of the respondent and have never been the clients of the respondents, nor has the respondent contacted these clients for the purposes of doing business with them. The respondent has also taken the position that there is no question of contacting any of the clients of the petitioner. 6. The respondent shall remain bound by the aforesaid statements. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contends that she be granted liberty to raise all her remaining prayers before the Arbitrator once the Arbitrator is appointed by the Court. 8. The aforesaid statements of the respondent is placed on record, and liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to raise remaining prayers before the Arbitrator. 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 01/11/2025 at 11:51:25 9. Accordingly, the instant petition along with pending application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J OCTOBER 29, 2025 aks/amg 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 01/11/2025 at 11:51:25