Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 1904
High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
Universal Finance Traders Ltd.
Versus
Lunar Diamonds Ltd. & Others
R.F.A.(OS) 76 of 2012
Decided on : 17-09-2012
For the Petitioner:Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate, instructed by Deepak Jain, K.B. Pradeep, Anil Kaushik, Karthik Ashok, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R5, P.D. Gupta, Kamal Gupta, R6, Akhil Sibal, Advocates.
The legal principle established in the judgment is that the defense raised must be permissible under the law, and the court may decree a suit if the claim is not denied.
Headnote:
Sick Company - Property Dispute - Companies Act, 1956, Section 433 - The court discussed the legal provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, particularly Section 433, and its application to the case. The interpretation of the law influenced the court's decision in dismissing the appeal and initiating perjury proceedings against the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
Late Smt.Sudesh Madhok filed a suit claiming a sum of Rs.1,31,07,607.00 from multiple companies. The defendants denied the claim, stating that the property in question was sold to the plaintiff, not mortgaged.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claim in the suit was not denied, and the defense raised was not recognized by law. The court decreed the suit in the sum of Rs.75 lakhs with interest and directed the bank guarantee to be invoked to satisfy the decretal amount.
Issues: Dispute over the ownership of a property and the validity of the claim made by the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defense raised by the defendants was not permissible under the law, and the claim in the suit was not denied, leading to the decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and costs were assessed against the appellant. The court initiated perjury proceedings against one of the defendants.
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. Late Smt.Sudesh Madhok, the wife of respondent No.5 and mother of respondent No.6 had filed a suit praying for a decree in sum of Rs.1,31,07,607.00 alleging that respondent No.1, M/s.Lunar Diamonds Ltd., respondents No.2, M/s.Lunar Gold International Pvt. Ltd., respondent No.3, M/s.Lunar Finance Ltd., respondent No.4, M/s.Sunrise Securities Ltd. And the appellant were Public Limited Companies. In February 1996, respondent No.2 requested her to discount a Bill of Exchange in sum of Rs.1,03,84,000/-drawn on respondent No.1 for a consideration of Rs.1,00,00,000/-and she agreed. Simultaneously, respondent No.1 executed a demand promissory note in her favour in sum of Rs.1,03,84,000/-and respondent No.3 executed a deed of guarantee in her favour. Additionally, respondent No.3 executed and delivered a pledge agreement as also an irrevocable power of attorney in her favour pledging shares worth
Rs.4 lakhs of respondent No.4 to her. Paying Rs.25 lakhs to her, respondent No.1 issued two cheques in sum of Rs.78,84,000/-and Rs.2,75,971/-, the latter towards interest to liquidate the liability in June 1997. The cheques were dishonoured. She pleaded that Flat No.10H, Vandana Building, Tolstoy Marg was later on secured by way of a mortgage for repayment of debt to her by the appellant and respondents No.1, 3 and 4. Stating that Rs.81,59,871/-towards the cheque amounts was due to her and that she had suffered loss in sum of Rs.10,00,000/-and pre-suit interest @18% per annum total Rs.39,47,636/-, decree claimed by her was in sum of Rs.1,31,07,607/-with interest @18% per annum till amount was received.
1. 2. A common written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 4 and the appellant under the signatures of Shri S.L.Maloo, who has not disclosed in the written statement as to in what capacity he was signing and verifying the pleadings and filing the same on behalf of the defendants. But admittedly was a director in all the companies. In a rolled over pleadings in the written statement, which have to be treated as an admission of the claim in the suit, it stands pleaded that in complete satisfaction of the claim of the plaintiff Flat No.10H, Vandana Building, Tolstoy Marg was sold to the plaintiff. In other words, the plea of the plaintiff that the flat was mortgaged to her was denied and the stand taken was that the flat was sold to her.
2. 3. In the replication filed, Smt.Sudesh Madhok reiterated the stand taken in the plaint.
3. 4. On January 25, 1999 while issuing summons in the suit, respondents No.1 to 4 and the appellant were restrained from transferring, selling or alienating Flat No.10H, Vandana Building, Tolstoy Marg.
4. 5. The suit thereafter chartered a course, which is reflective of a disinterested plaintiff and disinterested defendants.
5. 6. The claim of Smt.Sudesh Madhok not being denied in the written statement and the defence being that Flat No.10H, Vandana Building, Tolstoy Marg was transferred to her in full and final consideration of her dues, and Smt.Sudesh Madhok denying as aforesaid, had anybody drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that immovable property valued at more than Rs.100/-can be sold only by a sale deed and thus the defence was of a kind which was not recognized by law, a decree could have followed
on admission. But it never happened till when the impugned order was passed.
1. 7. Respondent No.1 became a sick company and rather than stay the suit qua said respondent, the suit got stayed, but later on got revived. Stage of settling issues reached when on November 24, 2004 Mr.Neeraj K.Singh, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 and the appellant made a statement that Flat No.10H, Vandana Building, Tolstoy Marg, which was given as security to secure the amount due to Smt.Sudesh Madhok, could be sold and amount realized could be paid to Smt.Sudesh Madhok in satisfaction of her claim by way of adjustment.
2. 8. But before the order could be implemente
