Full Text
CS(COMM) 374/2020
Date of Decision: 02.09.2025 IN THE MATTER OF:
RAJ KUMAR GUPTA
S/O LATE SHRI S.P GUPTA RESIDENT OF 1181/B, ARJUN NAGAR, KOTLA MUBARAKPUR, NEW DELHI-110049.
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
S/O LATE SHRI S.P GUPTA RESIDENT OF 1181/B, ARJUN NAGAR, KOTLA MUBARAKPUR, NEW DELHI-1 10049 .....PLAINTIFFS
Through: Mr. N. Prabhakar, Mr. Uday Sharma and Mr. Shailesh Sharma, Advs.
S/O LATE SHRI JIVAN DAS BAJAJ R/O E-59 (GROUND FLOOR), NEW DELHI, SOUTH EXTENSION PART-I
NEW DELHI-L10049 MRS ARUNA BALA BAJAJ WO LATE SHRI VIR BHAN BAJAJ
R/O E-59 (FIRST FLOOR), NEW DELHI-L10049 KUMAR KAURAV
SANJAY BAJAJ
S/O LATE SHRI VIR BHAN BAJAJ R/O E-59 (FIRST FLOOR RIGHT SIDE), NEW DELHI-110049
MRS JYOTI BAJAJ @JYONKHETRPAL W/O SHD YOGESH KHETRPAL
R/O D-8, SOUTH EXTENSION PART-I NEW DELHIL-10049
VIKAS BAJAJ
S/O LATE SHRI VIR BHAN BAJAJ R/O E-59 (SECOND FLOOR BARSATI), NEW DELHI-110049 .....DEFENDANTS
Through: Mr. S. S. Tripathi, Adv for D-1.
Mr. Anil Pruthi and Mr. Lovenish Mehndiratta, Advs for D-2, 3 and 5.
Mr. Nitesh Kumar, Adv for D-4.
J U D G E M E N T
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
U./O. XIII A)
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties on the instant application.
2. Mr. N. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, submits that defendants no. 2 to 4 have no reasonable chance of succeeding in the present civil suit, as they have consensually admitted to receiving an amount of Rs.1.31 crores. According to him, this fact is specifically pleaded in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the plaint, which remain uncontroverted by the defendants.
3. Mr. Prabhakar further submits that a perusal of the corresponding paragraphs of the defendants' written statements reveals that no plausible defence has been raised. He has taken the Court through the written statements filed by defendant nos. 2, 3, and 5, as well as the one filed by defendant no. 4. He specifically referred to paragraph no. 6 of each of these written statements, which responds to the corresponding pleadings in the plaint.
4. Mr. Prabhakar also points out that although during the pendency of this civil suit, an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), filed by the defendants, and his own application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, were disposed of, the defendants' admission regarding the execution of the agreement to sell dated 23.10.2018 and the receipt of substantial consideration remains uncontroverted. He further submits that paragraph 2 of his application contains specific averments, and paragraph 6 clearly states that a total sum of Rs.1,55,31,004/- has been received by the defendants. This position has also not been controverted in the reply to the application. He, therefore, contends that once the execution of the agreement and the acknowledgment of substantial payment are admitted, the defendants have no chance of succeeding in the present suit. Thus, there is no purpose in keeping the suit pending and relegating the parties to lead evidence.
5. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in: Jindal Saw Limited vs. Aperam Stainless Services and Solutions Precisions SAS[1], Su Kam Power Systems Ltd. vs. Kunwer Sachdev[2], Venezia Mobili (India) Private Limited vs. Ramprastha promoters and Developers Private Limited[3]; Ambawat Buildwel vs. Imperia Structure Ltd. and Ors.[4] and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P. Ramasubbamma vs. V. Vijayalakshmi and Ors.5.
6. Mr. Prabhakar further relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Karam Kapahi v. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust[6], and contends that the Division Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Shikharchand v. Mst. Bari Bai[7], was approved in the said case. He submits that the Court in Karam Kapahi held that the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 CPC apply wherever there is a clear admission of fact, making it impossible for the admitting party to succeed. Accordingly, he contends that in the present case, there are clear admissions both in the pleadings and in the documents, and thus, the power under Order XIIIA of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CC Act), deserves to be exercised.
7. The submissions made by Mr. Prabhakar are supported by Mr. S.S. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for defendant no. 1. Mr. Tripathi has also referred to paragraph no. 6 of the written statement filed by defendant no. 4 and contends that there is an unequivocal admission by the said defendant regarding the execution of the agreement and the receipt of the consideration amount.
8. Per Contra, Mr. Lovenish Mehndiratta, learned counsel for defendant nos. 2, 3, and 5, and Mr. Nitesh Kumar, learned counsel for defendant no. 4, appear and opposed the prayer..
9. Learned counsel for defendants no. 2 to 5 strongly oppose the submissions made by the plaintiff and defendant no. 1. They submit that the suit involves several triable issues that warrant a full-fledged trial. According to them, while the execution of the agreement dated 23.10.2018 and the receipt of Rs.1.35 crores are not disputed, it is contended that the said agreement was executed by suppressing an earlier agreement dated 19.10.2018, and thus, is vitiated by fraud. They further contend that although the agreement dated 23.10.2018 states the consideration as Rs.1.35 crores, the plaintiff seeks to revise this amount to Rs.2.15 crores without any written consent between the parties. Consequently, the defendants argue that if the consideration of Rs.1.35 crores, as stated in the agreement dated 23.10.2018, is accepted, the suit would not lie before this Court due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction.
10. In addition to challenging the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court, the defendants also assert, through various averments in their written statements, that the agreement dated 23.10.2018 is tainted by fraud and misrepresentation. They point out that the plaintiff has claimed an additional amount of Rs.20 lakhs allegedly paid in cash, which is denied by the defendants. Accordingly, they argue that a full-fledged trial is necessary, and at this stage, the suit cannot be decreed.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
12. So far as the legal position is concerned, as has been pointed out by Mr. Prabhakar, the same remains undisputed.
13. The reference can be made to the decision in the case of Jindal Saw Limited in paragraph nos.26, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 55; Su Kam Power Systems Ltd. in paragraph nos. 39, 40, 41, 45, 47, 48, 49, 90, 91, 92, 98 and 99; Venezia Mobili (India) Private Limited in paragraph nos. 36, 37, 47; and Ambawat Buildwel in paragraph nos. 20, 21 and 39; and P. Ramasubbamma in paragraph no. 9.
14. Keeping in view the legal position laid down in the above cases, if the facts of the present case are examined, it appears that the dispute in the instant civil suit pertains to a Property Development Agreement (PDA) dated 23.10.2018 in respect of property bearing no. 59, Block 'E', Delhi South Extension Part-1, measuring 200 sq. yds., jointly owned by defendant nos. 1 to 5.
15. The defendants appear to have become owners of the said property by virtue of a consent decree passed in CS(OS) 3412/2015 titled Raksha Bajaj vs. Satya Bajaj & Ors. The plaintiffs, acting as property developers, claim to have agreed to redevelop the property into a basement, stilt floor, ground floor, first floor, second floor, and third floor with terrace. In return, they were to acquire ownership of the first and second floors.
16. Out of the total consideration of Rs. 2.[1] crores claimed by the plaintiffs, a sum of Rs. 1.31 crores was paid on 12.01.2018. It is also the plaintiffs’ case that an additional Rs. 20 lakhs was paid under coercion. Accordingly, the total amount allegedly paid to the defendants is Rs. 1.54 crores, which is more than 70% of the agreed consideration. However, in the application, the plaintiffs claim to have paid Rs. 1,13,11,004/-, including TDS and other deductions.
17. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached their obligations by refusing to hand over possession, failed to execute a General Power of Attorney, failed to mutate the property, and did not comply with Clauses 8 and 9 of the PDA.
18. The plaintiffs assert that these breaches have prevented them from obtaining plan sanctions or commencing construction, despite their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract.
19. The plaintiffs also appear to have lodged FIR No. 0067/2020 dated 20.03.2020, and issued a legal notice dated 23.07.2020, and subsequently filed the present suit for specific performance and damages, valuing the claim at Rs.2.15 crores with appropriate court fees.
20. The defendants contest the maintainability of the suit. Defendant no. 4 specifically alleges fraud, misrepresentation, and suppression of a prior agreement dated 19.10.2018. He also challenges the increase in the valuation from Rs.1.35 crores to Rs.2.15 crores and claims to have received only Rs.15.65 lakhs. Defendants no. 2, 3, and 5 raise similar defences, alleging under-valuation of the property (which they claim has a market value exceeding ₹6 crores). The defendants also dispute various payments and argue that the PDA is unenforceable, unregistered, and barred under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Additionally, they contend that the suit is not maintainable as a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c) of the CC Act.
21. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court must determine whether the defendants have no real prospect of defending the claim, or whether there is no compelling reason for the matter to proceed to trial. This standard was elaborated in Reliance Eminent Trading & Commercial (P) Ltd. v. DDA[8], which reaffirmed the principles established in Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. MJ Bizcraft and Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. v. Kunwer Sachdev, as has been relief upon by learned counsel for the plaintiff. Relevant paragraphs of Reliance Eminent Trading & Commercial (P) Ltd are as follows:
39. Likewise in Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. (supra), Coordinate Bench of this Court dealt with the procedural requirements for passing summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC. It was held that Rule 3 of Order XIII-A CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, empowers the Court to grant summary judgment against the defendant where the Court considers that the defendant has no real prospects for successfully defending against the claim and there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence. The Court explained that the expression "real" obligates the Court to examine whether there is "realistic" as opposed to "fanciful prospects of success". The Court, thereafter, went on to observe that unlike ordinary suits, the Court need not hold trial in commercial suits, even if there are disputed questions of fact, in the 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4338 event the Court comes to the conclusion that the defendant lacks real prospect of successfully defending the claim. In other words, notwithstanding the existence of disputed questions of facts, the Court can pass a summary judgment if it is of the opinion that the defendant lacks real prospect of successfully defending the claim.
40. In light of the test laid down in the above decisions, the case set up by the parties to the present suit need to be analyzed in order to determine whether the defendant has set up a probable defense and if the rival contentions demand leading of evidence to settle the controversy. ***
53. Ergo, the defence put forth by the defendant cannot be said to be baseless and illusory. The summary procedure as prescribed in Order XIII-A CPC is to be resorted to by the Courts for passing of judgment in commercial disputes, where it could be disposed of without recording of oral evidence, which is not possible in the present case. Recording of oral evidence appears to be imperative as regards the issue of possession, which this Court finds to be contentious and triable.
54. Thus, the suit cannot be determined in a summary manner. The plaintiff in the present application has failed to meet the twin tests that - (a) the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim and; (b) there is no such compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence.”
22. The Courts have consistently held that summary judgment is an exceptional remedy, to be granted only when it is evident that a trial, including oral evidence and cross-examination, is unnecessary for resolving the dispute.
23. In the present case, although the plaintiffs have submitted substantial documentary evidence and partial admissions regarding payments, several triable issues remain. These include allegations of fraud, suppression, and misuse of criminal proceedings; the disputed characterization of payments; questions surrounding the enforceability of the agreement due to the PDA’s registration status and alleged bye-law violations; contradictions between the pleadings and the FIR; and other genuine disputes of fact that could materially impact the case outcome. The Court’s prior dismissal of some objections raised by the defendants does not conclusively address these unresolved factual controversies. Therefore, a full trial is essential to fairly adjudicate the parties’ rights. Summary judgment should not be granted, as the presence of serious factual disputes and allegations of fraud precludes the application of Order XIIIA CPC.
24. In view of the above discussion, the instant application stands dismissed. CS(COMM) 374/2020 and I.A. 8005/2020 (FOR INJUNCTION)
25. List this matter on 24.09.2025 before the concerned Joint Registrar for taking up further necessary steps in accordance with extant rules.
26. Thereafter, list before the Court on the date to be assigned by the Joint
27. At this stage, it is also noted that the plaintiff claims to have made a payment of Rs. 20 lakhs in cash. Therefore, In view of the directions given by the Supreme Court in the case of The Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar & Anr[9], the instant matter will have to be first reported to the jurisdictional Income Tax Department to verify the transaction and the violation of Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act, if any. Let the copy of the plaint along with all necessary documents be sent to the concerned Income Tax Authority.
JUDGE SEPTEMBER 2, 2025/aks/sph