In this interim application filed by the defendant seeking to set aside an ex parte decree, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition as the defendant had not appeared or pleaded before the court for its disposal.
The application to set aside the ex parte order is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~OS-4
Through Mr.Karan Gupta, Adv.
M/S ARYAN RETREATS AND VENTURES
PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Defendant Through None
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL)
IA No.11149/2018
This application is filed by the defendant for setting aside the ex parte order passed on 17.5.2018. None has appeared for the defendant. This application is accordingly dismissed.
CS(COMM) 883/2017
Page 1 of 7
CS(COMM) 883/2017
Page 2 of 7
CS(COMM) 883/2017
Despite various reminders the defendant failed to pay the said amounts and also failed to pay the rent for the month of July, 2016, totalling the amount to be Rs. 26 lakhs.
Page 3 of 7
CS(COMM) 883/2017
deed dated 25.05.2016 including payment of all outstanding dues. That on 27.07.2017, the defendant received the keys from the plaintiff and undertook to abide by the terms and conditions of the lease deed between the parties.
Page 4 of 7
CS(COMM) 883/2017
certificate of incorporation of the defendant company is marked and exhibited as Ex PW1/1. Thereafter, the defendant and the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement dated 25.05.2016 for a period of 9 years wherein it was agreed that the defendant would pay rent of the suit property in three rental trenches of three years each (i.e. Rent of Rs. 5,50,000/- for the first year, rent of Rs. 6,00,000/- for the second and third year, rent of Rs. 6,90,000/- for fourth, fifth and sixth year and rent of Rs. 7,93,500/- for the remaining years). The same was incorporated as clause 6 of the lease deed. The lease agreement dated 25.5.2016 is marked and exhibited as Ex.PW 1/5. It was also agreed that the defendant shall deposit a refundable sum of Rs. 36,00,000/- as security to which the defendant partly deposited Rs. 18 lakhs and agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 18 lakhs on or before 01.06.2016 failing which the defendant was liable to pay interest @ 24% per annum. The bank account statement of the plaintiff is marked and exhibited as Ex. PW1/9. It is also stated that on 03.07.2016 the defendant handed over the cheque of Rs. 18 lakhs towards the payment of the balance security deposit which was when present was dishonoured. Thereafter, plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 04.08.2016 for payment of Rs. 26.5 lakhs which is marked and exhibited as Ex. PW1/10. Thereafter, the plaintiff travelled abroad from 28.06.2016 to 30.08.2016 and on return was approached by the security guard employed by the defendant with the keys of the suit property stating that the defendant was not traceable. Plaintiff ticket and passport is marked and exhibited as Ex. PW1/11 and Ex. PW 1/12. The statement of security guard dated 01.09.2016 is marked and exhibited as Ex. PW1/13. The plaintiff approached the defendants’ official Mr. Samad and Mr. Avinash and came to know that the director of the defendant company
Page 5 of 7
CS(COMM) 883/2017
Mr.Dhruv Sood is prosecuted in other matter and hence, the defendant company is not in the financial position to carry the business anymore. It was further discussed that the plaintiff can adjust the outstanding amount from the deposited security amount of Rs. 18 lakhs. FIR copy dated 19.09.2016 and various order passed against Mr. Dhruv Sood are marked and exhibited as Ex. PW1/16 and Ex. PW 1/17. It was further agreed that after adjustment the balance amount shall be paid by the defendant. Due to another failure on part of the defendant the plaintiff issued another notice dated 02.11.2016. Various litigation was filed between the defendant and the plaintiff due to which on 20.07.2017 the plaintiff was restrained from interfering with the access of the defendant to the suit property in the civil suit filed by the defendant being suit no. 25886/2016. The plaint/applications of suit No. 25886/2016 is marked and exhibited as Ex. PW 1/26 to Ex. 1/38. Putting the entire dispute to rest, the plaintiff vide letter 25.06.2017 called the defendant to collect the keys to the suit property and abide by the terms and condition of the lease deed dated 25.05.2016 and clear the outstanding dues. The letter dated 25.06.2017 is marked and exhibited as Ex. PW 1/39. In pursuant to the aforesaid letter dated 25.06.2017 the suit property was handed over to the plaintiff on 27.06.2017. The receipt of keys and possession of the suit property is marked and exhibited as Ex. PW 1/40. The defendant again defaulted in paying the rent to the plaintiff and also failed to pay the remaining security deposit of Rs. 18 lakhs. A reminder letter dated 02.08.2017 followed by reminders dated 25.08.2017 and 01.09.2017 was issued by the plaintiff and a legal notice dated 18.10.2017. The same is marked and exhibited as Ex. PW 1/42 to Ex. PW 1/45.
Page 6 of 7
CS(COMM) 883/2017
JAYANT NATH, J
JANUARY 11, 2019/ss Corrected and released on:04.02.2019
Page 7 of 7
CS(COMM) 883/2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to set aside the ex parte order dated 17.05.2018 passed in CS (COMM) 883/2017.
SHRI VISHAL OHRI
M/S ARYAN RETREATS AND VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED
JAYANT NATH
As recorded by the court registry
A suit of a commercial nature above the specified value, governed by the Commercial Courts Act 2015.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
