Full Text
Translation output
$- x
IN THE HIGH COI,RT cs(os) lsBB/2011
OF DELI{I AT NEW DETHI
+
% fi
PBR IMPEX PVT LTD
Through:
AXIS BANK
IN THE HIGH COI,RT cs(os) lsBB/2011
OF DELI{I AT NEW DETHI
+
% fi
PBR IMPEX PVT LTD
Through:
AXIS BANK
JUDGMENT
Delivered on; 06.O7.20II..... pfaintiff
Yj::*ep Jain, Mr.Dweep Ahuia ano MrT. Chawla, Advs. r- -"'-r
VETSUS rhroush: ,,"
:lri:,3."j::i?ffA. Mathur and
Mr.Ajay Monga, Advocate r
Yj::*ep Jain, Mr.Dweep Ahuia ano MrT. Chawla, Advs. r- -"'-r
VETSUS rhroush: ,,"
:lri:,3."j::i?ffA. Mathur and
Mr.Ajay Monga, Advocate r
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTtcE G.s.sfsTANl t
H:::,8;rff.}"o""ers or local papers mav be arowed to see
?. fo be referred to Reporter or not?
3' whether the iuogme;-rt'sioulo be reported in the Digest?
1' Pfaintiff is stated to be engaged in the business of trading in rice for the rast around eight years. At the request of the. praintiff, credit facirities were granted by the defendant to the praintiff vide
' sanction letter dated 13*' March, 2c10 and revised sanction retter dated lgu' March, 20ro and 30rh March, 2010. fn terms of the sanction fetter, the credit facirity was secured by the praintiff, pledging the stock of rice stored at veer Arjun Godown, Chudhwa
Vifrage, Gandhidham, Gujarat and paddy stock at Ferozpur, punjab under the warehouse receipt with rien noted in favour or the defendant' since the plaintiff faifed to maintain the financial l\rye I of l cs(os) rs88/2Atr
2011:DHC:19608
Ja
I discipline, the defendant issued a recall notice dated 2l't April, 2011 to the plaintiff, demanding the entire outstanding of
Rs.5,03 .90,9L21- together with interest @ 9.85% per annurn till 12th March, 20IL and 11 .85% per annum w.e.f. 13th March, 2011 with further penal interest on the outstanding amount @2%o for overdue period. The plaintiff was directed to make the entire payment within three working days and was threatened that in case of failure to make the payment, the defendant would sell the entire stock pledged to them. The plaintiff made a representation dated
17th May, 2011 through e-mail to the defendant, seeking release of the pending stock for which money had already been remitted, as according to the plaintiff the stock of rice which was released by the bank was not as per the ratio of the payments actually made by the plaintiff.
It is the case of the plaintiff that no satisfactory response was received from the bank, however, vide e-mail dated 1B'n May, 2017, the bank threatened to auction the entire stock of rice in terms of the recall notice dated 21" April, 2011. The defendant requested the plaintiff by e-mail dated 04.06.2011 to deposit at least
Rs.1,00,00,000/- to have its pending stock released.
It has been pointed out by counsel for the defendant that although a cheque in the sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- was handed over, the same was dishonoured on presentation. l'he bank thereafter published an auction notice dated 24ti'June, 2011 in the Times of
2.
!r
3. cs(os) rs88i20il I'nge 2 o.li'i r
India' New Delhi inviting the tender for auction of the entire stock of the rice. The auction was proposed to be hef d on 06.07.20L1 at
2:00 p'm' The issuance of the auction notice has led to firing of the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunctibn, restraining the defendant from proceeding with the auction notice dated 24rh
June, 2OII.
4' when the matter was fisted on the first date of hearing, Mr.sumit
Bansar, advocate, had appeared on behaff of the bank, as the bank had'fired a caveat. Mr.pradeep Jain, counsef for the pfaintiff on instructions had stated that the pfaintiff is wiffing to enter into an amicabre settement with the bank and had offered to deposit a sum of Rs.75,00,ooo/- before the date of auction. He also offered to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/_, every ten days, subject to release of the predged rice. The matter was adjourned to 05rh Jury,20Lr, and thereafter adjourned at the request of counsel for the plaintiff for today
5' counsel for the parties informed the court at the first call that parLies had negotiated for an out of court set,ement and the deed of settlement was being drawn up. At the second calf, counsef for
. the parties have handed over a Deed of setilement, dury signed by
Mr.Varun Goel, authorized representative of the praintiff company, who is present in court. He identifies his signatures on each page of the Deed of Setflement, including the cutting.
6' Mr.Vipin Aggarwar, Assistant Vice-president of the defendant, bank t cs(os) rs88/201r
Puga -1 of 4 b is also present in court. He ioentifies his signatures on each page of the Deed of setflement, incruding the cutting. The pfaintiff undertakes that he wi, compfy with the terms of the Deed of settlement' lt is agreed that the auction schedufed to be held today i'e' 06'07 '2orr shall be cancef led, in view of the undertaking given to the court and the settlement which has been arrived at between the parties.
7 ' f n view of the settfement, pfaintiff does not press the present suit. n
Accoidingry, the suit is dismissed as not pressed, in terms of settf ement. No order as to costs. ln view of the order passed in the suit, l.A. stands dismissed.
't
JUI_Y 06,20L1
'ssn'
.-F'S'-<b''- r--- G.S.S!STAN|,J- cs(0s) ts88/20r1
I'ngc 4 oJ'4
H:::,8;rff.}"o""ers or local papers mav be arowed to see
?. fo be referred to Reporter or not?
3' whether the iuogme;-rt'sioulo be reported in the Digest?
1' Pfaintiff is stated to be engaged in the business of trading in rice for the rast around eight years. At the request of the. praintiff, credit facirities were granted by the defendant to the praintiff vide
' sanction letter dated 13*' March, 2c10 and revised sanction retter dated lgu' March, 20ro and 30rh March, 2010. fn terms of the sanction fetter, the credit facirity was secured by the praintiff, pledging the stock of rice stored at veer Arjun Godown, Chudhwa
Vifrage, Gandhidham, Gujarat and paddy stock at Ferozpur, punjab under the warehouse receipt with rien noted in favour or the defendant' since the plaintiff faifed to maintain the financial l\rye I of l cs(os) rs88/2Atr
2011:DHC:19608
Ja
I discipline, the defendant issued a recall notice dated 2l't April, 2011 to the plaintiff, demanding the entire outstanding of
Rs.5,03 .90,9L21- together with interest @ 9.85% per annurn till 12th March, 20IL and 11 .85% per annum w.e.f. 13th March, 2011 with further penal interest on the outstanding amount @2%o for overdue period. The plaintiff was directed to make the entire payment within three working days and was threatened that in case of failure to make the payment, the defendant would sell the entire stock pledged to them. The plaintiff made a representation dated
17th May, 2011 through e-mail to the defendant, seeking release of the pending stock for which money had already been remitted, as according to the plaintiff the stock of rice which was released by the bank was not as per the ratio of the payments actually made by the plaintiff.
It is the case of the plaintiff that no satisfactory response was received from the bank, however, vide e-mail dated 1B'n May, 2017, the bank threatened to auction the entire stock of rice in terms of the recall notice dated 21" April, 2011. The defendant requested the plaintiff by e-mail dated 04.06.2011 to deposit at least
Rs.1,00,00,000/- to have its pending stock released.
It has been pointed out by counsel for the defendant that although a cheque in the sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- was handed over, the same was dishonoured on presentation. l'he bank thereafter published an auction notice dated 24ti'June, 2011 in the Times of
2.
!r
3. cs(os) rs88i20il I'nge 2 o.li'i r
India' New Delhi inviting the tender for auction of the entire stock of the rice. The auction was proposed to be hef d on 06.07.20L1 at
2:00 p'm' The issuance of the auction notice has led to firing of the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunctibn, restraining the defendant from proceeding with the auction notice dated 24rh
June, 2OII.
4' when the matter was fisted on the first date of hearing, Mr.sumit
Bansar, advocate, had appeared on behaff of the bank, as the bank had'fired a caveat. Mr.pradeep Jain, counsef for the pfaintiff on instructions had stated that the pfaintiff is wiffing to enter into an amicabre settement with the bank and had offered to deposit a sum of Rs.75,00,ooo/- before the date of auction. He also offered to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/_, every ten days, subject to release of the predged rice. The matter was adjourned to 05rh Jury,20Lr, and thereafter adjourned at the request of counsel for the plaintiff for today
5' counsel for the parties informed the court at the first call that parLies had negotiated for an out of court set,ement and the deed of settlement was being drawn up. At the second calf, counsef for
. the parties have handed over a Deed of setilement, dury signed by
Mr.Varun Goel, authorized representative of the praintiff company, who is present in court. He identifies his signatures on each page of the Deed of Setflement, including the cutting.
6' Mr.Vipin Aggarwar, Assistant Vice-president of the defendant, bank t cs(os) rs88/201r
Puga -1 of 4 b is also present in court. He ioentifies his signatures on each page of the Deed of setflement, incruding the cutting. The pfaintiff undertakes that he wi, compfy with the terms of the Deed of settlement' lt is agreed that the auction schedufed to be held today i'e' 06'07 '2orr shall be cancef led, in view of the undertaking given to the court and the settlement which has been arrived at between the parties.
7 ' f n view of the settfement, pfaintiff does not press the present suit. n
Accoidingry, the suit is dismissed as not pressed, in terms of settf ement. No order as to costs. ln view of the order passed in the suit, l.A. stands dismissed.
't
JUI_Y 06,20L1
'ssn'
.-F'S'-<b''- r--- G.S.S!STAN|,J- cs(0s) ts88/20r1
I'ngc 4 oJ'4