CS(OS) 3057/2011 Page 1 of 18

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Reserved: 04^th July, 2022

Date of Decision: 13^th September 2022

+

CS(OS) 3057/2011

SUDHARSHAN DHOOP PVT LTD

4 & 5, G.I.A., G.T. Karnal Road,

Azadpur, Delhi- 110033

.... PLAINTIFF

Through:

Mr. Amardeep Singh, Advocate

versus

1.HOTEL QUEEN ROAD PVT LTD

19, Ashoka Road,

New Delhi - 110001

2.MR. R.P. MITTAL

81, Sainik Farms,

M.B. Road, New Delhi

..... DEFENDANTS

Through:

Mr. Sandeep Mittal, Advocate for D-1

& D-3

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G E M E N T

I.A.5270/2017

1. An application under Order XIIIA read with Section 151 of the Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) has been filed

on behalf of the plaintiff for Summary Judgment.

2. The material facts as stated in the application are that the plaintiff

gave a loan of ₹5,10,75,000/- to the defendant no. 1 through 14 account

payee cheques issued between February, 2017 to July, 2018. All the cheques

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003614

CS(OS) 3057/2011 Page 2 of 18

were honoured and the amounts were credited to the bank account of

defendant No.1. It was orally agreed that defendant No.1 shall pay an

interest @ 12% per annum to the plaintiff on the loan amount. The

defendant No.1 returned a sum of ₹22,00,000/- to the plaintiff on account of

the pending loan through account payee cheques dated 01^st December, 2008

in the sum of ₹10,00,000/- and cheque dated 06^th December, 2008 in the

sum of ₹12,00,000/-.

3. The defendant no.1 did not give any directions to the plaintiff in

regard to the appropriations of the said amounts, and thus, the plaintiff

appropriated the amounts firstly towards the accrued interest and thereafter

towards the principle amount. The statement of account of the plaintiff

Company reflects the entries of the amounts paid in the account of the

defendant Company and also reflects an amount of ₹22,00,000/- received

from the defendant No. 1 towards partial discharge of the loan liability.

4. The plaintiff has asserted that defendant No.1 in its written

statement did not deny the fact of honouring the cheques and of the amount

being credited to his account. However, a defence was set up that the

plaintiff Company is owned, managed and controlled by Ms. Jyoti Kesari

and her husband Manoj Kesari who are the daughter and son-in-law of Shri

R.P. Mittal, defendant No. 2 ex-Managing Director of the defendant no.1

Company. At the relevant time, Jyoti Kesari and Vandana Mittal, the

daughters of Sh. R.P. Mittal, were appointed as Vice president of Plaintiff

Company on a salary of ₹25,000/- p.m. They all devised a mechanism to

defraud the defendant no. 1 Company and defendant no. 2 took out the

money from the account of the defendant Company immediately after it was

credited and transferred it back to his account; thus, leaving no money as

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003614

CS(OS) 3057/2011 Page 3 of 18

paid in the account of defendant’s Company but creating a liability against

defendant Company by such transactions. It is asserted that the defendant

except this bald assertion, has not filed any document in support thereof and

it is evident that the defendants have no defence. In fact, the amount of

₹5,10,75,000/- has been shown in the books of defendant No. 1 Company in

the year 2007 thereby admitting having received amount. This amount has

also been shown in its Balance Sheet and defendant No.1 has admitted

unsecured loans of ₹30 lakhs in its B