Kumar Manglam v. Manik Lal Rauth

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2020 passed by the Learned District Judge, Commercial Court-05, Central District, Tis Hazari, Delhi.

2. The decree has been passed in a summary suit action preferred by the respondent/plaintiff under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 [in short, “CPC”].

3. Mr Prabhat Kumar, who appears on behalf of the appellant/defendant says that the Learned District Judge has erred in law, inasmuch as, if not a cast iron defense, the appellant/defendant had certainly raised triable issues.

3.1. Insofar as the defense is concerned, Mr Kumar submitted that instructions had been issued by the appellant/defendant to its bank to “stop 2022:DHC:3069-DB payment”, with regard to the cheques in issue, on 02.02.2018.

3.2. Furthermore, it is stated that the cheque in issue was handed over to one, Mr Swapan Maitey, and not to the respondent/plaintiff.

4. As against this, Mr Naveen K. Bansal, who appears on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, has stated that the impugned judgment has dealt with these issues. As regards the defence taken that the cheque in issue was handed over to Mr Swapan Maitey, Mr Bansal submitted that the Learned District Judge had observed that the complaint lodged was false and had been filed only to create a false defence.

5. Insofar as the aspect concerning the issuance of instructions by the appellant/defendant to its bank, that no payment should be made against the cheque in issue, Mr Bansal says the Learned District Judge has clearly noted that there were two different dates given in the application with regard to when the instructions were issued.

5.1. For this purpose, our attention has been drawn to paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment.

6. Both counsels have advanced various submissions before us. However, after some arguments, we have put to Mr Bansal as to whether the respondent/plaintiff would agree to a conditional leave to defend being granted to the appellant/defendant given the fact that the defence raised is not a complete sham or moonshine.

6.1. Mr Bansal submits, that conditional leave to defend, could be granted, provided that the entire principal amount is deposited by the appellant/defendant and a timeframe is fixed for disposal of the suit, in consonance with the view taken by the Supreme Court in a series of judgments including judgement dated 15.11.2016, titled IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. v. Hubtown Ltd. reported as (2017) 1 SCC 568 and judgement dated 18.01.2022, titled B.L. Kashyap and Sons Ltd. v. JMS Steels and Power Corporation & Anr. reported as 2022 (3) SCC 294.

7. Before we set down directions, we may also note that Mr Kumar has agreed to the conditions that are adverted to hereafter:

7.1. Thus, having heard the counsel for the parties, and given the fact that the respondent/plaintiff is agreeable to conditional leave to defend being granted, the appeal is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The impugned judgement dated 05.12.2020 is set aside.

(ii) The appellant/defendant will deposit the principal amount with the

Trial Court. (ii) (a) Since Rs. 10,00,000/- has been deposited, although with the Registry of this Court pursuant to order of this Court dated 08.04.2021, the Registry will remit the said amount to the Trial Court, as per the prevailing practice and procedure, to the credit of the subject suit, along with interest accrued to date. (ii) (b) The balance amount towards the principal sum will be deposited by the appellant/defendant with the Trial Court as per the prevailing practice and procedure, within the next four weeks.