The High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and closed the remaining connected appeals as they had become infructuous, holding the delays unexplained and unacceptable.
The application for condonation of delay (CM No.9749/2024) was dismissed; connected applications (CM Nos.9748-51/2024) were closed.
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.
$~29
SOURAV NARULA ..... Appellant Through: Mr Prashant Pathak, Mr Shantanu Dubey, Mr Ravi Pandey and Mr Anoop Pawar, Advs.
versus
NAVEEN KUMAR & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Brijesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):
CM No.9748/2024
RFA(COMM) 60/2024 & CM Nos.9749-51/2024
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date: 22.0 2.2024 17:44:40
RFA(COMM) 60/2024
Page 1 of 5
in respondent no. 2/partnership firm.
6.1 It is the case of respondent no. 1/plaintiff that he invested Rs.30,00,000/- in the respondent no. 2/partnership firm. Against the investment of Rs.30,00,000/-, respondent no.1/plaintiff was to receive Rs.1,50,000/- per month, equivalent to 5% of the invested amount.
7.1 It also appears that a certain part of the investment made by respondent no.1/plaintiff was transmitted to certain other entities, namely, SST Holidays and Narula Electronics.
7.2 The record also discloses that the agreed monthly payout was made for a while but it was stopped in September, 2020. That said, the appellant, it appears, has paid Rs.9,00,000/- to respondent no. 1/plaintiff.
7.3 It emerges from the record that the appellant, in the reply dated 30.11.2020, to the legal notice dated 06.11.2020, has admitted that respondent no. 2/partnership firm received Rs.25,00,000/-.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date: 22.0 2.2024 17:44:40
RFA(COMM) 60/2024
Page 2 of 5
above, instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 13,64,946/- which was due and payable as on 22.02.2021.
14.1 Furthermore, the trial court also recorded that in the reply dated 30.11.2020 to the legal notice [Ex.PW1/5], the appellant had accepted that Rs. 12,00,000/- remained unpaid.
14.2 Thus, having regard to the fact that the appellant had been proceeded ex-parte and had not filed its written statement, the trial court accepted the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date: 22.0 2.2024 17:44:40
RFA(COMM) 60/2024
Page 3 of 5
testimony of respondent no.1/plaintiff and, accordingly, decreed the suit for Rs.13,64,946/-. However, insofar as the interest was concerned, the trial court granted interest at the rate of 9% per annum pendent lite and till realization of the amount.
16.1 Furthermore, the appeal, quite curiously, describes appellant no.1 as a company even while referring to respondent no. 2/partnership firm. The memo of parties shows that there is only one appellant arrayed in the appeal, who is an individual, and was arrayed as defendant no. 2 in the suit. The appellant, as indicated above, was a partner in respondent no. 2/partnership firm.
17.1 Furthermore, the explanation given for seeking condonation is that the earlier counsel had not drafted the appeal till the first week of July 2023, whereupon, there was a change in counsel brought about in second week of August 2023.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date: 22.0 2.2024 17:44:40
RFA(COMM) 60/2024
Page 4 of 5
and sent the same for approval of the appellant. The record shows that the appeal was filed on 22.12.2023.
21.1 The net result would be that the appeal, application for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal and the interlocutory application are rendered infructuous.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
AMIT BANSAL, J
FEBRUARY 16, 2024
aj
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PREM MOHANCHOUDHARY RFA(COMM) 60/2024 Signing Date: 22.0 2.2024 17:44:40
Page 5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the appeal and in condonation of delay application should be condoned.
Whether the applications for condonation of delay and for interlocutory matters should be allowed given the reasons provided.
Sourav Narula
Naveen Kumar
Rajiv Shakdher
Amit Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
A first appeal against a decree of a Commercial Court under the Commercial Courts Act 2015.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
