Dismissed¶31

M/S Mn Automobile Private Limited v. Guriqbal Singh & Anr.

Delhi HC19 May 2025CM(M)/924/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Arrears of rent deposit direction; application under Section 151 CPC to furnish security instead of deposit rejected; application vague and unspecific; security inadequate and insufficient; arrears approximately Rs. 1 crore; order dated 19.11.2024 upheld in FAO (COMM) No. 20/2025 on 20.01.2025; SLP dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 28.02.2025 with time upto 31.03.2025; attempt to defeat specific orders and delay proceedings; attachment of assets only upon decree; CM(M) 924/2025; Manoj Jain, J.; decided 19.05.2025; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; the petition was dismissed and all pending applications were disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ¶31

M/S Mn Automobile Private Limited Vs Guriqbal Singh & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; the petition was dismissed and all pending applications were disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned Trial Court order dated 26.04.2025, dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 151 CPC seeking leave to furnish security in lieu of depositing the arrears of rent, suffers from any illegality or perversity.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The application moved by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court under Section 151 CPC was totally vague and unspecific; along with the application, the petitioner did not disclose what kind of security and assets it was offering in lieu of the deposit.

¶8

Key takeaways

Despite extensions of time granted even by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (upto 31.03.2025), the petitioner, instead of depositing the arrears, was trying to find out a way to defeat the specific orders, i.e., to delay the proceedings.ratio¶25
The security now offered by the petitioner is neither adequate nor sufficient and does not secure the interest of the plaintiff in the desired manner; the petitioner has no real option but to deposit the arrears of rent in terms of the specific directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Manoj Jain, J.), decision dated 19.05.2025 in CM(M) 924/2025: Petition by M/s MN Automobile Private Limited (defendant no. 1 before the Trial Court) challenging the Trial Court's order dated 26.04.2025 dismissing its application under Section 151 CPC seeking leave to furnish security instead of depositing arrears of rent of approximately Rs. 1 crore. The deposit direction had been issued on 19.11.2024, upheld in FAO (COMM) No. 20/2025 by the Division Bench on 20.01.2025 (time extended six weeks), and the SLP against it was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 28.02.2025 (time extended upto 31.03.2025). The Court held the Section 151 CPC application totally vague and unspecific, the security offered neither adequate nor sufficient and not securing the plaintiff's interest, and the petitioner's conduct an attempt to defeat the specific orders and delay the proceedings; it found no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and dismissed the petition, disposing of pending applications likewise. Observed (obiter) that attachment of assets may be considered when a decree eventuates.

¶1

$~77

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 19^th May, 2025

¶4

- CM(M) 924/2025, CM APPL. 30262/2025 & CM APPL. 30263/2025

¶5

M/S MN AUTOMOBILE PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sudeep Shrotriya and Mr. Prakhar Singh, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

GURIQBAL SINGH & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Varun Singh, Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶10

Petitioner is defendant no. 1 before the learned Trial Court and vide order dated 19.11.2024, it was directed to deposit the entire arrears of rent within four weeks.

¶11

Such order was challenged by defendant no. 1 but was upheld by Division Bench of this Court on 20.01.2025 in FAO (COMM) No. 20/2025 . While dismissing the appeal, however, on the basis of prayer made by learned counsel for appellant/petitioner herein, the time for depositing the arrears of rent was extended by learned Division Bench also for a further period of six weeks.

¶12

Things, however, did not stop here.

¶13

Despite asking and despite being granted time of six weeks, the petitioner filed a Special Leave to Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 28.02.2025 dismissed such SLP. While dismissing SLP even Hon’ble Supreme Court extended the time to deposit the said amount upto 31.03.2025.

¶14

Instead of depositing the arrears, which are approximately to the tune of

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

CM(M) 924/2025 1

¶17

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 1.05.2025 11:36:48

¶18

Rs. 1 crore, defendant rather moved an application under Section 151 CPC and sought leave of the Court to rather present security, instead of depositing the aforesaid amount.

¶19

Such application filed under Section 151 CPC has been dismissed by learned Trial Court vide order dated 26.04.2025 .

¶20

Such order is under challenge.

¶21

This Court has gone through the application which the petitioner herein had moved before learned Trial Court. Needless to say, the application is totally vague and unspecific. Defendant no. 1 merely sought permission for securing the amount by placing some security and its fixed assets with the equal amount but fact remains that along with the application, he did not disclose as to what kind of security and assets, he was offering in lieu thereof.

¶22

Along with the present petition, he has given details of some tangible assets which includes car, plant & machinery, furniture and office equipment etc.

¶23

It seems that petitioner has taken the things for granted.

¶24

When the order dated 19.11.2024 was challenged by it and the appeal was dismissed, learned counsel for petitioner/appellant himself had sought time to deposit the arrears of rent and despite extension of time, the rent was not deposited.

¶25

As already noticed above, even Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dismissing the SLP, had granted time to petitioner upto 31.03.2025 and instead of depositing the arrears, petitioner is rather trying to find out a way to defeat the aforesaid specific orders.

¶26

Question of attachment of assets may come for consideration when, eventually, there is a decree. The intention of the petitioner is to delay the

¶27

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 1.05.2025 11:36:48

¶28

CM(M) 924/2025 2

¶29

proceedings. To make things worse, it does not even describe or give details of any such alternate security before the learned Trial Court. Moreover, the security, now, offered by the petitioner is neither adequate nor sufficient. It does not secure the interest of the plaintiff in desired manner. Importantly, petitioner has no real option but to deposit the arrears of rent, in terms of the specific directions given by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶30

Viewed thus, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 26.04.2025.

¶31

In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed.

¶32

All the pending applications are also disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶33

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶34

MAY 19, 2025/ dr/shs

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed CM(M) 924/2025 3 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 1.05.2025 11:36:48

M/S Mn Automobile Private Limited v. Guriqbal Singh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Mn Automobile Private Limited v. Guriqbal Singh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arbro Pharmaceuticals P Ltd. Vs Rakesh Dham and Ors.

Prabha Vs Indore Development Authority and Anr. & Anr.

Neeti Malhotra & Anr. Vs Aar Pee Apartments Pvt. Ltd.

Geeta Pal Vs Smt. Badami Devi and Anr.

Chain Sukh Pal Vs Shiv Charan Goel

M/S Consolidated Construction Ltd. Vs Gsc Glass Pvt. Ltd.

Sanjay Vs Pallavi Sharma & Ors.

Kdp Buildwel Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Vs Mr. Deepak Kumar Tomar

Arbro Pharmaceuticals P Ltd. Vs Rakesh Dham and Ors.

Rajeev Sehgal Vs Ved Prakash

Kamlesh Dhingra through Lr Arun Khanna Vs Din Dayal and Ors.

K. L. Manhas Vs M/S Skystar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.

Sanjay Goel Vs Sag Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Prem Nath Sarup (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sumit Agarwal