Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 79268 (PNJ)

M/S METICULOUS PHARMACEUTICALS PVT LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MUNISH SINGH SALWAN v. PAWAN KUMAR MAINI

CR/4382/2025 · 2025-07-17

Vikas Bahl

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CR-4382-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** CR-4382-2025 Date of decision : 17.07.2025 M/s Meticulous Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner Versus Pawan Kumar Maini ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr.Vishva Nath Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 22.05.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala in Civil Appeal titled as “M/s Meticulous Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Grampus Pharmaceuticals” vide which the petitioner has been directed to pay ad-valorem court fee on the decretal amount. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a limited prayer before this Court to the extent that the petitioner would pay ad-valorem court fee on the amount ultimately decreed by the trial Court vide order dated 22.05.2025 but has prayed that six weeks time be granted to him to make the said payment. It is submitted that there is no interim order in Davinder Kumar 2025.07.18 16:16 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CR-4382-2025 2 favour of the present petitioner in the appeal filed by it. It is further submitted that after 22.05.2025, the case was adjourned to 03.07.2025, on which date the petitioner had sought time for making payment and the case has been adjourned to 25.07.2025 for the purpose of making the payment. 3. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances and the limited prayer made by the petitioner, the present petition is disposed of while upholding the order dated 22.05.2025 by granting the petitioner six weeks time from today to deposit the ad-valorem court fee on the amount ultimately decreed by the trial Court. 4. It would be open to the respondent to recall the present order in case, any statement made by the petitioner before this Court is found to be false/incorrect. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE July 17, 2025. Davinder Kumar Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Davinder Kumar 2025.07.18 16:16 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment