Allowed

M/S Sareen Estates Private Ltd. v. M/S Mgf Estates Private Ltd.

Delhi HC18 Jul 2016CS(COMM)/57/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court examined a suit for recovery of Rs.2 crores advanced as a short-term loan. The parties settled the claim for Rs.1 crore with a three-month payment extension and agreed interest terms. The court accordingly decreed the suit based on the mutual settlement.

What did the court decide?

Decree for Rs.1 crore with three months time extended to 17th October 2016 for payment; interest at 15% per annum if payment not made.

M/S Sareen Estates Private Ltd. Vs M/S Mgf… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 57/2015

¶4

M/S SAREEN ESTATES PRIVATE LTD ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Pramod Saigal and N.S. Bajwa, Advs.

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/S MGF ESTATES PRIVATE LTD. ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Sunil Magon, Adv.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O R D E R % 18.07.2016

¶8

This suit for recovery of Rs.1,45,75,000/- with future interest @ 18% per annum is ripe for framing of issues.

¶9

After perusal of the pleadings, it appears that no substantial question of law or fact arises for issues to be framed and thus the suit is entitled to be decreed under Order XV of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The counsels have accordingly been heard on the said aspect.

¶10

The plaintiff has instituted the suit pleading (i) that the defendant approached the plaintiff for financial assistance of Rs.2 crores as a short term loan to meet its immediate financial needs; (ii) that the plaintiff in order to bail out the financial needs of the defendant advanced Rs.2 crores.

¶11

At this stage, the counsel for the defendant states that subject to the plaintiff giving up the claim for interest for the period prior to the institution of the suit and thereafter and further subject to three months’ time being CS(COMM) 57/2015 Page 1 of 2

¶12

given to the defendant to pay the decretal amount, the defendant is willing to suffer a decree for the principal amount of Rs.1 crore.

¶13

The counsel for the plaintiff is agreeable thereto.

¶14

The counsels have confirmed so after passover and after obtaining instructions.

¶15

Accordingly, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for recovery of Rs.1 crore and time of three months i.e. till 17^th October, 2016 is granted to the defendant to make the payment to the plaintiff. If however the said payment is not made within the said time, the principal amount decreed shall also incur interest @ 15% per annum from today’s date till the date of recovery and in which event, the plaintiff shall also be entitled to proportionate cost of this suit. The counsels’ fee assessed at Rs.35,000/-.

¶16

The counsel for the plaintiff also states that subject to the payment being made, as aforesaid, on or before 17^th October, 2016, the plaintiff shall also withdraw Company Petition No.362/2014 filed with respect to the same debt.

¶17

Decree sheet be drawn up.

¶18

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

¶19

JULY 18, 2016 bs..

¶20

Page 2 of 2

¶21

CS(COMM) 57/2015

M/S Sareen Estates Private Ltd. v. M/S Mgf Estates Private Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sareen Estates Private Ltd. v. M/S Mgf Estates Private Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Red Bull Ag Vs Universal Nutritious Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

M/S Symphony Ltd. Vs Summerking Electricals Pvt.Ltd.

Puma Se & Anr. Vs Capital Sports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Nhpc Ltd. Vs Karam Chand Thapar & Bros.(Cs) Ltd.

Merck Kgaa & Anr. Vs Pawan Kumar Jindal & Ors.

Paras Rice Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sharda Rice Mill

Staar Surgical Company Vs Polymer Technologies International & Ors.

Ashland Licensing and Intellectual Property Llc & Anr. Vs Dinesh Mahajan & Ors.

Pepsico, Inc. & Anr. Vs M/S Sahyadri Beverages & Ors.

Ricoh India Limited Vs Nayan Bhimani Patel

Tommy Hilfiger Licensing B v Vs Amit Duggal & Anr.

Hotel Excelsior Ltd. Vs Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Ltd.

M/S New Era Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Oriole Exports Private Ltd.

M/S Sareen Estates Private Ltd. Vs M/S Oriole Exports Private Ltd.