Dismissed

Gurmeet Singh v. Ram Shanker

Delhi HC13 Mar 2019CM(M)/426/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to an order allowing his leave to defend under Order XXXVII CPC. The petitioner's pleading failed to substantiate claims of repayment or misuse of cheques, leaving specific court queries unanswered. The application was deemed frivolous and without merit.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as frivolous without merits. Costs of Rs. 10,000 imposed to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund.

Gurmeet Singh Vs Ram Shanker — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~56

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M) 426/2019, CM APPLs. 11732-33/2019 GURMEET SINGH ..... Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Avinash Kumar Lakhanpal and Mr. Dhiraj Kumar, Advs. versus

¶5

RAM SHANKER ..... Respondent Through:

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 13.03.2019

¶10

The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 29.01.2019 whereby his application seeking leave to defend in a summary/money suit under Order XXXVII CPC, was allowed subject to his depositing 50% of the suit amount i.e. Rs.3 lakhs with the Court. The order inter alia reads as under:

¶11

“3. On the other hand, the defendant claimed that there are various transactions which took place between the parties and the amount of Rs.6.00,000 was already repaid. In this regard, counsel for defendant has drawn my attention to page no 48 which shows acknowledgment of receiving of certain amount by the plaintiff but the counsel for plaintiff specifically claimed that the amount ofRs.4,00,000 was towards the receiving given by the defendant and the next amount of Rs.19,00,000 and third amount of Rs. 3,00,000 though not admitted but even if it is presumed to have been acknowledged by the plaintiff, the same pertained to another transaction of sale of the property of the defendant vide agreement to sell dated February, 2011 whereby Rs.25,00,000 was given by the plaintiff but since the said deal was hot completed, the defendant returned the said amount of Rs.22,00,000.

¶12

4. When a specific query, was raised with regard to the aforesaid entries to the counsel for defendant as well as

¶13

defendant, he simply argued that there were various other transactions between the parties but no specific details of the amount taken, paid back, when and to whom, have been disclosed. The amount of Rs.6,00,000 also do not correspond clearly to the amount of Rs.19,00,000 and Rs.3,00,000.”

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon para 8 (iii) of his application for leave to defend which reads as under:

¶15

“8. (iii). That it is submitted that the amount as mentioned in the agreement has already been returned by the Defendant during their financial transactions and nothing was due and payable to the Plaintiff arising out of the agreement between the parties. It is submitted that the Defendant herein is filing his bank account for the year 2015 in order to show the fact that there has been financial transaction between the parties and the Defendant on 27.5.2015 has transferred huge amount of Rs.7 lakhs in the name of family members of the Plaintiff. It is submitted that the Plaintiff herein had misused the blank cheque given by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as mentioned above.”

¶16

Quite clearly, the said pleading does not, in any way, address the issue raised by the Court. Accordingly, the petition being without merits and is dismissed as being frivolous, with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund, within two weeks.

¶17

NAJMI WAZIRI, J

¶18

MARCH 13, 2019/acm

Gurmeet Singh v. Ram Shanker

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurmeet Singh v. Ram Shanker

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

M/S Triveni Adhesives Tapes Vs Shashi Jain

Vijay Kumar Vs Varun Prakash & Ors.

Raj Kumar Tayal & Anr. Vs M/S Tci Concor Multimodal Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Vineet Jain Vs Nahar Singh Mahipal Jain

M/S Sparsh Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. Vs Leelu Ram & Ors.

Atul Sharma Vs Narender Vashishtha & Ors.

Bhajan Lal Vs Anil Kumar Goyal & Anr.

Rakesh Pal & Anr. Vs Gauri Shankar

Manoj Kumar Shukla Vs Geeta Pandey

M/S Rama Paper Mills Ltd. Vs Dr Sadhana Rout

Rahul Chaudhary Vs Rajnish Sahai & Ors.

Dr Saroj Khanna & Anr. Vs Professor Tarun Kumar Dass Registrar, University of Delhi & Ors.

Ram Iqbal Yadav Vs Sundar Amarsheel Charitable Trust

Rakesh Kumar Nanda Vs Jitendeer Singh