Moti Ram Baldhari Prasad & Company v. North India Coating P. Ltd.

/o
•
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CO.PET. 218/2008
MOTI RAM BALDHARI
PRASAD & COMPANY
Through

NORTH INDIA COATING
P.LTD. ..... Petitioner Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Advocate ..... Respondent
#!J
Through Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate with Mr. Ratan Kumar Jha, AR.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
05.07.2011 On 3rd May, 2011 after hearing the parties at length I had passed the following order:-
"I have suggested to learned counselfor respondent to deposit in this Court the disputed amount of
Rs.ll,25,8491-.
Learned counsel for respondent requests for an adjournment to obtain instructions.
List the matter on 161 h May, 2011. " Today, Mr. Ranjan Kumar, learned counsel for respondent states on instructions of Mr. Ratan Kumar Jha, Authorised
2011:DHC:7050 \\ Representative of respondent-company that respondent, without prejudice to its rights and contentions, would deposit in its own name within a period of eight weeks the principal outstanding amount of~
11,25,849/- in a fixed deposit receipt (FDR) initially for a period of one year. He further states that in the event petitioner were to file recovery proceedings in an appropriate forum, respondent would not
• take the plea of limitation.
Mr. Siddharth Gautam, learned counsel for petitioner states that the said FDR should be endorsed by the Registrar General with the remark that said receipt cannot be encashed prior to the date of maturity.
The aforesaid statements made by the learned counsel are accepted and parties are held bound by the same.
Accordingly, with the consent of the parties I dispose of the
..; present petition by directing the respondent-company to deposit the disputed liability of~ 11,25,849/- in an interest bearing FDR with a nationalized bank in respondent's name initially for a period of one year. Respondent would produce the said FDR before the Registrar
General of this Court for endorsement so that the said amount cannot be encashed prior to its date of maturity.
(
•
"rv List before Registrar General on 9th September, 2011 for the purpose ofendorsement.
The petitioner is granted liberty to file appropriate legal proceedings to seek recovery of its alleged outstanding of
~ 11 ,25,849/- with interest. It is made clear that the FDR would abide by any order which may be passed by any competent court.
Needless to say that this order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Further the competent court is directed to decide the said case on merits, without being influenced by any observations made by this Court.
With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of.
JULY 05, 2011 m i }!'!;;._/, {~l /I l [,/,.
·~1 '. ' ' I ~ y ~J- MANMOHAN,J I f r.~ I '..,' !"' ( 7' f."' '' ~
I' I t '. l (. (~ t
•
•
8 '\v\ $- HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CO. APPL. 1479/2011 IN CO.PET. 218/2008
/o MOTI RAM BALDHARI PRASAD & COMPANY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Advocate.

NORTH INDIA COATING P.LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate with Ms. Rohini Kumar, Advocate.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
10.08.2011 Present application has been filed for correction of typographical error in the order dated 05 h July, 2011 .
With consent of parties, order dated 051 h July, 2011 is modified to the effect that petitioner is granted liberty to file recovery proceedings in an appropriate forum within four weeks' time from the date of furnishing of a Fixed Deposit Receipt by the respondent before the Registrar General of this Court. It is further clarified that in case
• e' the recovery proceedings is filed within a period of four weeks' from the date of furnishing of FDR, respondent would not take the plea of limitation before the trial Court.
With the aforesaid observations, present application stands disposed of.
AUGUST 10,2011 JS \\~ MANMOHAN,J / \';