CS (COMM) 618/2019

Page 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: March 03, 2021

+

CS(COMM) 618/2019 & CM. No. 8431/2020

PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LIMITED

..... Plaintiff

Through:

Mr. Vijay Nair, Adv. &

Mr. Manoranjan Sharma, Adv.

versus

MR. VIKRAM KHOSLA

.... Defendant

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

J U D G M E N T

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff, Parsvnath Developers

Ltd. which is a company incorporated under the provisions of the

Companies Act, 1956, against the sole defendant, Vikram Khosla

for recovery of monies and possession, with the following

prayers:

2021:DHC:812

CS (COMM) 618/2019

Page 2

deem fit and proper.”

2. When this case came up for hearing for the first time on

November 07, 2019 summons were issued to the defendant

through all modes. On the second date of hearing, it was recorded

that the service report was refused by one Pradeep, after which

fresh summons were issued again. On the next date of hearing on

March 02, 2020, the service report came back with the comments

‘refusal by wife of defendant’. Thereafter the matter was placed

before Court by the learned Joint Registrar. This Court vide order

dated March 13, 2020 proceeded ex-parte against the defendant,

in view of deemed service. The question which arises is whether

the plaintiff should be directed to lead ex-parte evidence. The

Plaint having been verified and is also supported with affidavit /

Statement of Truth on behalf of the plaintiff, and the defendant

having been proceeded ex-parte no purpose would be served if

the plaintiff was directed to lead ex-parte evidence. A Coordinate

bench of this Court in the case of Satya Infrastructure Ltd. and

Ors. v. Satya Infra and Estates Pvt. Ltd.,2013 (54) PTC 419

(Del), has held as under:

2021:DHC:812

CS (COMM) 618/2019

Page 3

merits qua the relief of injunction.”

3.

I have heard the counsel for the plaintiff in respect of the

reliefs prayed. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint is the

following:

i.

The plaintiff Co. entered into a Concession

Agreement dated September 09, 2007 with the Delhi

Metro Rail Corporation Limited (‘DMRC’ for short)

whereby DMRC gave to the plaintiff a specified area at

Games Village Metro Station on Indraprastha – New

Ashok Nagar Corridor, New Delhi on a licence basis for

a period of 30 years expiring on September 19, 2037

(Concession period) for development into a shopping

mall/ complex by the name of ‘The Parsvnath Mall’,

which the plaintiff was entitled to sub-license.

ii.

The defendant had approached the plaintiff for

taking on the sub-licensed portion situated on the first

floor at Parsvnath Mall, Games Village Metro Station on

2021:DHC:812

CS (COMM) 618/2019

Page 4

Indraprastha – New Ashok Nagar Corridor, New Delhi

measuring 10,200 Sq. ft. Super Area (Covered area

being 8,500 Sq. ft. being 83.3% of super area),

comprising of ten Shops/outlets and three kiosks (‘Suit

premises’ for short) in order to run a food joint from

there.

iii.

It is the case of plaintiff that, that the defendant had

taken suit premises on sub-license from the plaintiff and

had entered into a Sub Licence Agreement (‘SLA’ for

short) and an Amenities Agreement both dated January

28, 2016 with the plaintiff, for the purpose of running a

food joint there under the name and style of “Platters

Food Court”. Under the clause 4.1 of the SLA the

defendant is liable to pay the sub-license fees of Rs.

5,00,000 per month to the plaintiff for the first three

years of the term and further under clause 4.6 of the SLA

the defendant is liable to pay service tax or any other

levies directly attributable to the use of the suit premises,

in addition to the sub-license fees under clause 10.1 of

the SLA. The defendant is also to pay charges for

consumption of electricity and water as per actuals. As

per Clause 4.7 of the