High Court Of Delhi
STRUCTURAL WATERPROOFING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
CONTINENTAL FOUNDATION JOINT VENTURE - Respondent
Interim Application 11228 of 2002
Decided On : 03/07/2003
Code of Civil Procedure - Injunction - Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 - LA. 11228/2002 - LA. 224/2003 - LA. 569/2003 - LA. 1247/2003
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money against Defendants 1 and 3 for supplies made. Defendants claimed a settlement dividing the businesses of Plaintiff family and made payment to a third party, Cico Technologies Limited, which Plaintiff contested.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Defendants were not entitled to Leave to Defend as they failed to show grounds for it. Defendant No. 2 was granted unconditional Leave to Defend. Interim orders restraining Defendants were confirmed.
Issues: Dispute over payment for supplies, validity of Defendants' claim of settlement, entitlement to Leave to Defend, and confirmation of interim orders.
Ratio Decidendi: Defendants failed to show grounds for Leave to Defend. Defendant No. 2 granted unconditional Leave to Defend. Interim orders confirmed due to doubts about Defendants' ability to pay.
Final Decision: Defendants 1 and 3 directed to deposit the outstanding sum with the Court. Defendant No. 2 granted unconditional Leave to Defend. Interim orders confirmed.
( 1 ) THIS order shall dispose of all the above mentioned applications. LA. 11228/2002 has been filed by the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and accompanies the plaint. On 18. 12. 2002 the Defendants were restrained from selling, agreeing to sell, alienating or parting with possession of the property bearing No. Continental House, 28-29, nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.
( 2 ) LA. 224/2003 is for the issuance of Summons for Judgment. Since the question of whether to grant Leave to Defend to the Defendants shall be addressed in these Orders. This application stands disposed of.
( 3 ) LA. 569/2003 has been filed by the Defendants under Order VII Rule 11 praying for the dismissal of the suit and also for the initiation of criminal contempt. Counsel for Defendants, however, has not argued or pressed the prayer for contempt of Court.
( 4 ) LA. 1247/2003 has been filed by Defendant No. 2 seeking Leave to Defend. Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 have filed an affidavit seeking Leave to Defend without a formal application. The affidavit filed by Defendants 1 and 3 be numbered as an interim application.
( 5 ) THE Plaintiff s case is that Defendants 2 and 3 had constituted a Joint Venture in the name and style of Defendant No. 1, all three of them doing business from the same premises i. e. Continental House, 28-29, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019. It has been averred that Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 represented to the Plaintiff that in case defendant No. 1 failed to make payment, they would be liable for it. It has been further alleged that the Defendants placed oral orders from time to time for the supply of Resin Capsules and Cement Capsules etc. In the Purchase Orders it has been mentioned that interest at the rate of 25 per cent will be charged on the outstanding beyond thirty days of delivery. All the Invoices pertaining to the claim have been filed in original amounting to Rs. 18,86,679. 83. All the supplies were made by the Plaintiff from B-29, Sector 4, District Goutam Budhnagar, Noida (UP. ). Neither the receipt of these Invoices nor supplies made against it have been denied.
( 6 ) THE contention of Defendants 1 and 3 is that they had paid a sum of Rs. 21,14,243/- to M/s. Cico Technologies Limited on 13. 2. 2002. Although this was challenged by the Plaintiffs earlier, it is no longer in dispute consequent upon the filing of an affidavit along with the Statement of Account of Citibank, New Delhi by defendants 1 and 3. The contention of these Defendants, however, is that with the payment of the said sum to Cico Technologies Limited, all their liabilities against the sundry bills detailed in Annexure P-IIstood fully and finally discharged. It has been contended by learned Counsel for these Defendants that there has been material suppression of facts in that the plaint does not mention a formal settlement whereby the businesses of Plaintiff family were divided. According to the Defendant, this division took place by virtue of Memorandum of Understanding (Mou) dated 1. 2. 2000 between Shri Sumit Gupta and Shri Amit Gupta, sons of late Shri Santosh ranjan Gupta and Smt. Dipti Gupta, the widow of late Santosh Ranjan Gupta. The terms of the Mou were, inter alia, as follows:
"the assets and liabilities of SWC, New Delhi and Noida will be taken over by SG Group and AG Group respectively as under: (a) The Factory at B-29, Sector-IV, Noida (U. P.) will go to SG Group. It is agreed between the parties that AG will shift the Lab which is presently ath-76,sector-IX,noidafactory and the ISCREW MIXTURE Machine, either to B-29 Factory or any other location as suggested by SG Group along with the existing facilities of ISI and ISO. (b) The Factory at 11-76, Sector-IX, Noida and H-78/sector-IX, Noida will go to AG Group (Any liability during and after the aforesaid transfer will be borne by AG Group ). (c) All the assets and liabilities attached to B-29, Sector-IX, Noida Factory will be taken over by SG Group. Wh
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.