Allowed

Hi Tech Medicalproducts Ltd. v. Industrial Development Bank of India & Anr.

Delhi HC5 Feb 2018CS(COMM)/797/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an interim application for deletion of SBI as a party. The Court dismissed the application, discharged the defendant from liability via OTS settlement, and decreed the main suit directing the defendant to execute assignment and release title deeds within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Deed of Assignment to be executed and title deeds released within four weeks; suit decreed.

Hi Tech Medicalproducts Ltd. Vs Industrial… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

13 $~

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 797/2016

¶4

HI TECH MEDICALPRODUCTS LTD ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocate with Mr. Harpreet Singh, Mr. Pravesh Bhauguna and Mr. Gagan Kumar Sehgal, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA & ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Ajay Bahl, Advocate for defendant No.1. Mr. Mayank Bhargava, Advocate with Ms. Shreya Mehra, Advocate for defendant No.3.

¶7

% Date of Decision: 05^th February, 2018

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

¶9

J U D G M E N T

¶10

MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)

¶11

I.A. 1348/2018

¶12

Present application has been filed on behalf of the State Bank of India-defendant No.3 under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for its own deletion from the array of parties and dismissal of the suit against it.

¶13

CS (COMM) 797/2016

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

In the present application, it has been averred that the loan account of defendant No.2 stands settled under defendant No.3 Bank’s OTS-2017 Scheme and as such the defendant No.3 has no surviving claim against the defendant No.2.

¶16

Keeping in view the said averments, State Bank of Indiadefendant No.3 is deleted from the array of parties.

¶17

Accordingly, present application stands disposed of. CS(COMM) 797/2016

¶18

Present suit has been filed for declaration by the plaintiff praying for the following reliefs:-

¶19

“(i) pass a decree of declaration against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff, declaring that the plaintiff has the right to get executed deed of assignment in its favour and to obtain release of the loan agreement, guarantee agreements and the title deeds of the properties of the defendant No.2 charged with the defendant No.1, in its favour;

¶20

(ii) direct the defendant No.1 to execute a deed of assignment in favour of the plaintiff and to release the loan agreement, guarantee agreements and the title deeds in respect of the properties of the defendant No.2, which are in the possession of the defendant No.1;

¶21

(iii) alternatively, direct the defendant No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.78,71,524/- (Rupees Seventy Eight Lakhs Seventy One Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Four) with interest on market rate to the plaintiff;

¶22

(iv) award costs of the Suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.1;

¶23

(v) award damages amounting to Rs.2,00,00,000- (Rupees Two Crore Only) in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No.1; and

¶24

CS (COMM) 797/2016

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

(vi) any other order or orders in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No.1 in the interest of justice.”

¶27

On 19^th July, 2016, the learned Predecessor of this Court by way of a detailed order had recorded the statement of learned counsel for defendant No.1 that it was left with no claim against defendant No.2 or the defendant No.2’s properties. In the said order, it had further been recorded that the defendant No.1 had not released the charge over the properties of the defendant No.2 in favour of plaintiff because defendant No.1 was holding a joint charge along with SBI who had till date not furnished a NOC.

¶28

In view of the order passed today recording the statement of defendant No.3-SBI that it has no surviving claim against the defendant No.2, this Court declares that the plaintiff is entitled to get the Deed of Assignment executed in its favour and to obtain the Loan Agreement, Guarantee Agreement and Title Deeds of defendant No.2 charged with defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 is also directed to execute the Deed of Assignment in favour of the plaintiff and to release the Loan Agreement, Guarantee Agreement and Title Deeds in respect of defendant No.2 which are in possession of defendant No.1 within a period of four weeks. Accordingly, present suit stands decreed. Registry is directed to prepare a decree sheet accordingly.

¶29

MANMOHAN, J

¶30

FEBRUARY 05, 2018 js

¶31

CS (COMM) 797/2016

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Hi Tech Medicalproducts Ltd. v. Industrial Development Bank of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hi Tech Medicalproducts Ltd. v. Industrial Development Bank of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lotus Herbals Limited Vs the Chief Commissioner of Custom & Ors.

Tv Today Network Limited Vs Independent News Service Private Limited & Another

Relaxo Footwears Limited Vs Aerobok Shoe Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

M/S. Superon Schweisstechnik India Limited Vs M/S. Geetech India

Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs Grasim Electricals and Switch Gear Pvt. Ltd.

Marico Limited Vs Gurcharan Singh Vidyarthi & Anr.

Shri Surinder Nayyar & Ors. Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation

Rony Kaula Vs Vijay Gutte

Lotus Herbals Limited Vs the Chief Commissioner of Custom & Ors.

Dr. Hans U. Nagar Vs Ronald Nagar and Others

M/S. Superon Schweisstechnik India Limited Vs M/S. Geetech India

Moorgate Industries India Private Limited Vs Mohnish Mukkar & Others

Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs Grasim Electricals and Switch Gear Pvt. Ltd.

Rony Kaula Vs Vijay Gutte