IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:03.07.2025 + C.R.P. 303/2024 & CM APPL. 61563/2024 AJAY GUPTA AND ANR. .....Petitioners versus AMIT SALES CORPORATION PVT. LTD.

AND ANR. .....Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners : Mr. Siddharth Handa and Mr. Manu Padalia, Advs.

For the Respondents : Mr. Amrendra Nath Shukla, Mr. Saurabh Malik and Mr. Suraj Sharma, Advs. for R-1.

CORAM HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition is filed against the order dated 13.09.2024 (hereafter ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned District Judge, Commercial Court, Saket Courts, Delhi in Execution (Comm) 548/2023 whereby the objection filed by the petitioners against the lifting of corporate veil qua the directors of Respondent No. 2 company/petitioners was dismissed.

Signature Not Verified

2. Briefly stated, a suit for recovery was filed by Respondent No. 1 against Respondent No. 2 company. Respondent No. 1 company dealt in the business of supply of steel pipes and tubes of various types and had been supplying goods/materials to Respondent No. 2 company for its various projects as per its demands since April, 2012 against purchase orders. It is the case of Respondent No. 1 that they had been maintaining a running account for the goods supplied and also for the payments received from the defendant-company. According to the said running account, a sum of ₹89,84,570/- remained outstanding.

3. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 admitted to its liability and issued three cheques towards part payment of the outstanding amount. Out of the three cheques, one cheque for a sum of ₹50,00,000/- was presented for encashment, however, the same returned unpaid on 02.05.2013. Thereafter, another cheque dated 01.02.2014 was issued by Respondent No. 2 company towards part payment of ₹89,84,570/-. The said cheque too, upon presentation, returned unpaid vide return memo dated 26.04.2014 with remarks “funds insufficient.” The said cheques were admittedly signed by Petitioner No. 1. A criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was also filed by Respondent No. 1. A legal notice dated 09.05.2014 was also issued to Respondent No. 2 company to clear the outstanding amount of ₹89,84,570/-. However, despite service of notice, Respondent No. 2 failed to clear the outstanding dues. Consequently, a suit for recovery was filed before this Court. Since Respondent No. 2 Signature Not Verified failed to enter appearance despite service, the suit was proceeded ex-

parte vide order dated 04.09.2017.

4. By order dated 23.11.2017, this Court decreed the suit in favour of Respondent No. 1 company. It was noted that the act of Respondent No. 2 in issuing the cheque dated 01.02.2014 for a sum of ₹25,00,000/- in part payment of the outstanding amount and the same being dishonoured vide return memo dated 26.04.2014 with remarks “funds insufficient” were indicative of the mala fide intent of attempting to evade the payments due and payable to Respondent No.1. It was further noted that despite the issuance of legal notice dated 09.05.2014 to clear the outstanding dues, Respondent No. 2 company failed to either reply or clear the dues. Consequently, the suit was decreed for a sum of ₹1,11,04,928/- with pendente lite and future interest @8% per annum on the outstanding amount in favour of Respondent No. 1 company.

5. Subsequently, Respondent No.1 filed an execution petition being Execution (Comm.) 548/2023 thereby seeking execution of the decree against the petitioners. By the impugned order, the learned Executing Court noted that post the registration of FIR, the petitioners left India and were also declared proclaimed offenders. It was noted that the petitioners were directors at the time when the cheques were issued to Respondent No. 1 and also when the recovery suit was decreed in favour of Respondent No. 1. It was noted that Respondent No. 2 company was found to be indulging in defrauding the peop