Religare Finvest Limited Vs Balaji Great Lotus Glory & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Religare Finvest Limited Vs Balaji Great Lotus Glory & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Summary judgment application I.A. 42174/2024 allowed and suit decreed in plaintiff's favour in terms of prayers A-D and F of the plaint; pending applications disposed of as infructuous.

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment and decree under Order XIII-A and Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, given that defendants were proceeded ex parte, filed no reply, and had admitted certain claims (including the further assignment of actionable claims) in their Order VII Rule 11 application I.A. 3224/2023. +1 more

Court's answer

Since no reply was filed by the defendants, the assertions made by the plaintiff were taken to be admitted.

Ratio / Principle

The plaintiff's application I.A. 42174/2024 (under Order XIII-A and Order VIII Rule 10 CPC) seeking summary judgment was allowed.

Key takeaways

The suit was decreed in terms of prayers A-D and F in the plaint.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Anish Dayal, J.), by order dated 13.02.2025 in CS(COMM) 924/2022, Religare Finvest Limited v. Balaji Great Lotus Glory & Ors., allowed the plaintiff's application I.A. 42174/2024 under Order XIII-A and Order VIII Rule 10 CPC and decreed the suit in terms of prayers A-D and F of the plaint. The defendants had been proceeded ex parte and filed no reply; consequently the Court held the plaintiff's assertions to be admitted. Those assertions included that Clause 10.1 of the Settlement Agreement dated 01.07.2017 between the plaintiff and defendant nos. 2 to 7 prohibited assignment of rights and obligations, and that defendant nos. 2 to 7 nonetheless purportedly assigned their rights to defendant no.1 by a Master Settlement Agreement dated 26.09.2020 without the plaintiff's consent - an assignment the defendants themselves admitted through paras 8 and 28 of their earlier Order VII Rule 11 CPC application (I.A. 3224/2023). Pending applications were disposed of as infructuous. No monetary quantum is stated in the order.

$~8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- CS(COMM) 924/2022, I.A. 22453/2022 I.A. 22458/2022 I.A.

3224/2023

RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED .....Plaintiff

Through: Mr. Sandeep Das, Ms. Kanak Malik & Mr. Tejasvi Mahajan, Advs.

versus

BALAJI GREAT LOTUS GLORY & ORS .....Defendants

Through: None

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R

% 13.02.2025

I.A. 42174/2024 (under Order XIII-A & Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC)

This application has been moved by plaintiff seeking summary judgment and decree on the ground that defendants have been proceeded exparte and even as per application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC ( I.A. 3224/2023 ) that had been filed, certain claims of plaintiff were admitted. 2. Briefly, the suit was filed by plaintiff seeking the following prayers:

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/02/2025 at 11:09:08

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/02/2025 at 11:09:08

The background facts of the case are that an assignment agreement dated 25^th July 2015 was entered into between plaintiff and defendant no.2, to assign certain loans and receivables together with all the rights, title & interest of plaintiff to defendant no.2. On 1^st July 2017 a S ettlement Agreement was executed between plaintiff and defendant nos. 2 to 7.

Clause 10.1 prohibits assignment of any rights and/or obligation by defendant nos. 2 to 7 under the Settlement Agreement . Disputes arose between the parties. Thereafter, defendant nos. 2 to 7 assigned their rights under the agreement by a purported Master Settlement Agreement dated 26^th September 2020, to defendant no.1.

Counsel for plaintiff has drawn attention to para 8 of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC ( I.A. 3224/2023 ) filed by defendant nos. 2 to 5 which avers that plaintiff became aware of the assignment of rights to actionable claims as early as on 01^st January 2021 itself, thereby admitting that there is was further assignment by defendants.

He further points to para 28 of the said application, where it is averred by defendants, that Master Settlement Agreement was executed between defendant nos. 2 to 6 at Mumbai. Moreover, in that application, it is not denied that Master Settlement Agreement of 2020 was executed between defendant nos. 2 to 6 in favour of defendant no.1.

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/02/2025 at 11:09:08

Counsel for plaintiff further draws attention to Clause 10.1 of the Settlement Agreement dated 1^st July 2017, which reads as under:

“ 10.1 Assignment

The Parties shall not be entitled to, nor shall they purport to, assign, transfer, charge or otherwise deal with all or any of its/their rights and/or obligations under this Agreement nor grant, declare, create or dispose off any right it interest in it, in whole or in part. ”

The contention by plaintiff is there was prohibition on assigning further and in any event no consent was taken from plaintiffs for further assignment of said Settlement Agreement and therefore, Master Settlement Agreement could not have been actioned.

Considering that there is no reply filed by defendants, the assertions by plaintiff shall be taken to be admitted.

The application is accordingly allowed.

The suit is decreed in terms of prayer A-D and F in plaint, as extracted above.

Suit stands disposed of in the above terms.

Pending applications are disposed of as infructuous.

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

ANISH DAYAL, J

FEBRUARY 13, 2025/sm/na

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/02/2025 at 11:09:08