Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of
JUDGMENT
M/S ARIHANT ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through Mr. K.G. Sharma, Advocate
Through Mr. Shakeel Sarwar Wani, Advocate for respondent no.1.
M/S ARIHANT ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES & ORS .....Appellant
Through Mr. K.G. Sharma, Advocate
Through Mr. Shakeel Sarwar Wani, Advocate for respondent no.1.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. Challenge in these appeals is to the order dated 30.01.2019 by which two separate applications filed in two separate suits seeking leave to defend have been allowed in part. The respondents/plaintiffs had instituted two suits for recovery. The learned Single Judge has 2019:DHC:2267-DB granted conditional leave to defend subject to deposit of a sum of Rs.1,16,98,138/- with interest @ 10% per annum from 30.04.2013 till the date of deposit within eight weeks from the date of the order. The reasons for grant of leave to defend find mentioned in paras 5 to 9 of the order 30.01.2019 passed in CS(OS).650/2016, which read as under:
8. However, as far as the claim of the plaintiff for balance principal amount, on account of interest @ 4% per mensem is concerned, at least at this stage such claim appears to be unconscionable and neither can be decreed nor security can be directed to be furnished therefor.
9. Accordingly, leave to defend is granted to the defendants No.1, 3 & 4, subject to the defendants No.1, 3 & 4 depositing in this Court a sum of Rs.1,16,98,138/- together with interest therein @ 10% per annum from 30th April, 2013 till the date of deposit, within eight weeks of today, as sought.”
2. The learned Single Judge further observed that the reasons which prevailed in the order on leave to defend in CS(COMM).650/2016 would apply to the present suit as well. Thus, leave to defend was granted to the defendants no.1, 3 and 4, subject to the defendants no.1, 3 and 4 depositing in Court a sum of Rs.45,80,406/- with interest @ 10% per annum from 30.11.2013 till the date of deposit within eight weeks from the date of the order in the second suit. The only submission made before us by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the order is extremely harsh in nature. The learned counsel submits that the financial condition of the appellants is such that they are unable to deposit the amount and resultantly, the purpose of granting leave to defend would be lost. Counsel seeks modification of the order as far as it relates to deposit of the amounts with interest.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that he is the contesting party and has been pursuing the matters for recovery of money. He submits that complaints pertaining to Section 138 of the N.I. Act were filed in the year 2012 and the civil suits were filed in the year 2016 and till date he has not received any amount.
4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. Having regard to the financial condition of the appellants and to meet the ends of justice, we deem it appropriate to modify the order of the learned Single Judge as far as it relates to deposit subject to the defendants no.1, 3 and 4 depositing in Court 50% of the principal amount in both the suits and a bank guarantee for the remaining amount. Subject to the above modification, leave to contest is granted as directed by the learned Single Judge. The order be complied with within six weeks from today, failing which the consequences will follow.
5. It is made clear that the order will apply to the present appellants alone and would not apply to defendant no.2 in the suit as no appeal has been filed by him.
6. With these directions, both the appeals are disposed of.
7. All pending applications also stand disposed of. G.S.SISTANI, J. JYOTI SINGH, J. APRIL 24, 2019 pst