Full Text
Translation output
& $-28 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO(OS) 377/2013 & CM Nos. 12819-20/2013
MR PRAMOD KUMAR JAIN & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr Vinod Tyagi, Advocate
FAO(OS) 377/2013 & CM Nos. 12819-20/2013
MR PRAMOD KUMAR JAIN & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr Vinod Tyagi, Advocate
VERSUS
MR RAMAN KUMAR JUNEJA ..... Respondent
CORAM:
Through: Mr Joy Basu, Senior Advocate with Mr Aditya Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
13.11.2013 This appeal is against the order dated 15.07.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in I.A No. 1497112009 (under
Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC) and I.A No. 922112010 (under
Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC) as also I.A No. 13641/2010 (under Order
XII Rule 6 CPC). Insofar as the order relates to the application under
Order XII Rule 6 CPC, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that no interference with the impugned order is called for, inasmuch as, there are no clear cut admissions in the written statement filed by the defendant.
However, in respect of the order passed under Order XXXIX
Rules 1 and 2 CPC and Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC, we are of the view that the appellants ought to be adequately secured. It is an
2013:DHC:7277-DB l admitted fact that a sum ofRs 1.5 crores was paid by the appellants to the defendant in respect of an agreement to sell dated 18.01.2008 in respect of the property bearing No. 20/2, Civil Lines, Rajpur Road, Delhi - 110054 measuring 442 sq. yards and known as "Kailash".
The sale transaction, however, has not gone through. The appellants are not claiming specific performance of that agreement but are claiming return of the said sum of Rs 1.5 crores ·along with damages of Rs 20 lakhs. On the other hand, the respondent I defendant claims that the entire amount of Rs 1.5 crores was earnest money and has been forfeited and, therefore, there is no question of return of the said sum of Rs 1.5 crores or of payment of damages of Rs 20 lakhs. That, however, is a subject matter of the suit. Insofar as, we are concerned, at this interim stage, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met if an amount of Rs 1.3 crores is secured. We have arrived at a figure of Rs 1.3 cores because in the agreement to sell itself a sum of Rs 20 lakhs has been indicated as earnest money. The whole dispute here is whether the earnest money amount was Rs 20 lakhs or was it the entire sum of Rs 1.5 crores. Insofar as the sum of
Rs 20 lakhs is concerned, prima-facie, we are of the view that it was earnest money. Therefore, if we subtract the amount of Rs 20 lakhs from the sum of Rs 1.5 crores, we are left with a sum of Rs 1.3 crores.
The learned Single Judge has already directed that the sum of Rs 50 lakhs which had been deposited in criminal proceedings, which have been referred to in the impugned order, shall continue to remain deposited and shall be subject to orders that may be passed in the suit.
Therefore, to the extent of Rs 50 lakhs also the appellants are secured.
, This leaves a sum of Rs 80 lakhs. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that that also stands secured inasmuch as, the learned Single Judge has directed the defendant I respondent not to deal with the property No. 568, Sector 21A, Faridabad during the pendency of the suit and that the title deeds of that property would continue to remain in deposit in the criminal court and could be released only after and in accordance with the orders passed in the suit. The learned counsel for the appellants states that he is not concerned with the said property at Faridabad. Considering the same, we modify the order of the learned Single Judge and release the respondent I defendant from the liability imposed on him in respect of the said property insofar as the present suit is concerned.
Consequently, we direct that in its place, the respondent shall deposit a further sum of Rs 80 lakhs with the Registrar General of this court within a period of 8 weeks. The said sum shall be placed in a fixed deposit initially for a period of 181 days and shall be renewed from time to time till further orders ofthe trial court.
With these modifications, the appeal stands disposed of.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J NOVEMBER 13, 2013 su
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
13.11.2013 This appeal is against the order dated 15.07.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in I.A No. 1497112009 (under
Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC) and I.A No. 922112010 (under
Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC) as also I.A No. 13641/2010 (under Order
XII Rule 6 CPC). Insofar as the order relates to the application under
Order XII Rule 6 CPC, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that no interference with the impugned order is called for, inasmuch as, there are no clear cut admissions in the written statement filed by the defendant.
However, in respect of the order passed under Order XXXIX
Rules 1 and 2 CPC and Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC, we are of the view that the appellants ought to be adequately secured. It is an
2013:DHC:7277-DB l admitted fact that a sum ofRs 1.5 crores was paid by the appellants to the defendant in respect of an agreement to sell dated 18.01.2008 in respect of the property bearing No. 20/2, Civil Lines, Rajpur Road, Delhi - 110054 measuring 442 sq. yards and known as "Kailash".
The sale transaction, however, has not gone through. The appellants are not claiming specific performance of that agreement but are claiming return of the said sum of Rs 1.5 crores ·along with damages of Rs 20 lakhs. On the other hand, the respondent I defendant claims that the entire amount of Rs 1.5 crores was earnest money and has been forfeited and, therefore, there is no question of return of the said sum of Rs 1.5 crores or of payment of damages of Rs 20 lakhs. That, however, is a subject matter of the suit. Insofar as, we are concerned, at this interim stage, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met if an amount of Rs 1.3 crores is secured. We have arrived at a figure of Rs 1.3 cores because in the agreement to sell itself a sum of Rs 20 lakhs has been indicated as earnest money. The whole dispute here is whether the earnest money amount was Rs 20 lakhs or was it the entire sum of Rs 1.5 crores. Insofar as the sum of
Rs 20 lakhs is concerned, prima-facie, we are of the view that it was earnest money. Therefore, if we subtract the amount of Rs 20 lakhs from the sum of Rs 1.5 crores, we are left with a sum of Rs 1.3 crores.
The learned Single Judge has already directed that the sum of Rs 50 lakhs which had been deposited in criminal proceedings, which have been referred to in the impugned order, shall continue to remain deposited and shall be subject to orders that may be passed in the suit.
Therefore, to the extent of Rs 50 lakhs also the appellants are secured.
, This leaves a sum of Rs 80 lakhs. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that that also stands secured inasmuch as, the learned Single Judge has directed the defendant I respondent not to deal with the property No. 568, Sector 21A, Faridabad during the pendency of the suit and that the title deeds of that property would continue to remain in deposit in the criminal court and could be released only after and in accordance with the orders passed in the suit. The learned counsel for the appellants states that he is not concerned with the said property at Faridabad. Considering the same, we modify the order of the learned Single Judge and release the respondent I defendant from the liability imposed on him in respect of the said property insofar as the present suit is concerned.
Consequently, we direct that in its place, the respondent shall deposit a further sum of Rs 80 lakhs with the Registrar General of this court within a period of 8 weeks. The said sum shall be placed in a fixed deposit initially for a period of 181 days and shall be renewed from time to time till further orders ofthe trial court.
With these modifications, the appeal stands disposed of.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J NOVEMBER 13, 2013 su
JUDGMENT