Skip to content


B.B. Patel Vs. Nexim Exports (P) Ltd. and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Commercial

Court

Delhi High Court

Decided On

Case Number

Suit No. 2889 of 1993

Judge

Reported in

1993IVAD(Delhi)365; 52(1993)DLT233

Acts

Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 37, Rule 3(5)

Appellant

B.B. Patel

Respondent

Nexim Exports (P) Ltd. and ors.

Advocates:

C.L. Sareen and; K.C. Kalra, Advs

Cases Referred

B. B. Patel v. Nexim Exports Pvt. Ltd.As

Excerpt:


the case questioned whether time could be extended when a conditional order was passed for granting leave to defend under rule 3 of order 37 of the civil procedure code, 1908 - it was stated that said leave could only be granted after giving the requisite bank guarantee - also, the said bank guarantee was subject to the timely renewal - although, it was found that no steps were taken in order to renew the said guarantee within the stipulated time - thereforee, it was held that under section 148 of the civil procedure code, 1908, the time could not be extended in the said situation; hence, the suit was decreed - - fao(os) 143/93 against the order dated 3/05/1993 mentioned hereinabove and the said appeal was dismissed by a division bench of this court on 13/07/1993. (5) in view of the above discussion i am of the view that it is not a fit case to grant further time of two months to the defendants to make necessary arrangements for depositing the amount as directed in the order dated 3/05/1993. since the defendants have failed to comply with the conditions subject to which the leave to defend was granted to the defendants.sat pal, j. (1) in this case vide order dated 3/05/1993, the defendants were granted leave to defend under order xxxvii rule 3(5)subject to the following conditions:'(a) defendants shall renew the bank guarantee for half of the suit amount and keep the same alive, during the pendency of the suit;(b) the remaining half of the amount shall be deposited in the form of fixed deposit receipt for a period of one year, which shall be renewed from time to time during the pendency of thesuit. the said amount shall be deposited in a nationalised bank and the fdr be furnished to the registrar of thiscourt.'(2) it was further stated in the said order dated 3/05/1993 that the conditions mentioned here in above shall be complied with by the defendants within two months from the date of the order. since the conditions have not been complied by the defendants within the stipulated time, the case was listed before the court on 28/09/1993. on the said date an affidavit was filed on behalf of the defendants wherein it has been stated thatthe defendants could not comply with the conditions mentioned in the orderdated 3/05/1993 as the bankers of the defendants had committed criminal breach of trust.....

Judgment:


Sat Pal, J.

(1) In this case vide order dated 3/05/1993, the defendants were granted leave to defend under Order xxxvii Rule 3(5)subject to the following conditions:'(a) Defendants shall renew the bank guarantee for half of the suit amount and keep the same alive, during the pendency of the suit;(b) The remaining half of the amount shall be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt for a period of one year, which shall be renewed from time to time during the pendency of thesuit. The said amount shall be deposited in a Nationalised Bank and the Fdr be furnished to the Registrar of thisCourt.'

(2) It was further stated in the said order dated 3/05/1993 that the conditions mentioned here in above shall be complied with by the defendants within two months from the date of the order. Since the conditions have not been complied by the defendants within the stipulated time, the case was listed before the Court on 28/09/1993. On the said date an affidavit was filed on behalf of the defendants wherein it has been stated thatthe defendants could not comply with the conditions mentioned in the orderdated 3/05/1993 as the bankers of the defendants had committed criminal breach of trust and misappropriated the amount deposited by thedefendants. It was further stated in this affidavit that further time of two months may be granted to the defendants to make necessary arrangements for compliance of those conditions.

(3) The arguments were heard in this case on 8/10/1993.During the course of the arguments, Mr. Sarin, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff drew my attention to the letter dated 6/07/1993addressed by the defendants to the Manager, Indian Bank, Ndse Part-1,New Delhi, copy of which has been annexed Along with the affidavit filed onbehalf of the defendants on 28/09/1993. The said letter reads asunder:'Dear Sir,This has reference to our Bank Guarantee for Rs. 24,20,000.00(Rupees twenty four lacs twenty thousand only) in favor ofHon'ble High Court, New Delhi in the case of B. B. Patel v. Nexim Exports Pvt. Ltd.As per the order of, copy attached, you are requested to renew the Bank Guarantee for half the amount, and the balance half amount should be converted into a Fixed Deposit for I (one) year and both are to be submitted to the Registrar of,the Court.Thanking you,Yours faithfully,Sd/-(Mohan Murti)'

(4) From this letter it is evident that the defendants approached their banker after the expiry of the period of two months granted to them in terms of orders dated 3/05/1993 to renew the bank guarantee for half the amount and to convert the balance half amount into a fixed deposit to be submitted to the Registrar of this Court. From this letter it is clear that within the stipulated period the defendants did not even make any serious effort to comply with the conditions subject to which the leave was granted to the defendants. It may also be pointed out here that the defendants had filed an appeal bearing No. FAO(OS) 143/93 against the order dated 3/05/1993 mentioned hereinabove and the said appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 13/07/1993.

(5) In view of the above discussion I am of the view that it is not a fit case to grant further time of two months to the defendants to make necessary arrangements for depositing the amount as directed in the order dated 3/05/1993. Since the defendants have failed to comply with the conditions subject to which the leave to defend was granted to the defendants. I am ofthe view that the suit should be decreed forthwith. Accordingly, I decree the suit for recovery of Rs. 24,20,000.00 with costs and pendente lite interest and future interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till realisation. A decree may be drawn accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //