Delhi District Court
Sh. Deepak Khosla vs Housing Development Finance ... on 17 October, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Ms. JYOTI KLER, ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
CUMJUDGE SMALL CAUSE COURTCUM GUARDIAN JUDGE, SOUTH
EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CS No: 161/14
Case ID No. 02406C0095982014
IN THE MATTER OF :
Sh. Deepak Khosla
S/o Sh. R.P. Khosla,
218, Sectot XVA,
Noida 201301 (U.P.) .....Plaintiff.
VERSUS
1.Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. HDFC House, Olof Palme Marg, Munirka, New Delhi - 110067 Email: [email protected]:
2. Ascot Estates (Manesar) (P) Ltd.
Acting through its Director, Madhurima Bakshi 15th Floor, Mohan Dev Building, 13 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi - 110001 Email: [email protected]
3. Ascot Hotels & Resorts Ltd.
Acting through its Director, Vinod Surha, 15th Floor, Mohan Dev Building, 13 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi - 110001 Email: [email protected]
4. Connaught Plaza Restaurants (P) Ltd.
CS 161/14 Deepak Khosla Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation Bank & Ors. 1/16 Acting through its Company Secretary, Mr. Devinder Jain, Having its Registered Office at:
'Mohan Dev' Building, 13 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi - 110001 Also at:
13A Jor Bagh, New Delhi - 110003.
Email: devinder.jain@,mcdonaldsindia.net;
5. McDonald's India Pvt. Ltd.
[A "subsidiary", a.k.a joint venture, of McDonald's Corporation, Inc. USA] Acting through its Director, Mr. C.R. Dua, 202206 Tolstoy House, 15, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi - 110001 Also at:
E20, Hauz Khas Main Market, New Delhi - 110006 Email: [email protected]
6. McDonald's's Corporation (Parent Company of McDonald India Pvt. Ltd.) Through its Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Don Thompson, One McDonald's Plaza, Oakbrook, IL 60523, USA Also at:
202206 Tolstoy House, 15, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi - 110001.
CS 161/14 Deepak Khosla Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation Bank & Ors. 2/16 Email: [email protected];
[email protected];
7. Sh. Vikram Bakshi S/op Late Devki Nadan Bakshi, 157, Golf Links, New Delhi.
Email: [email protected]
8. Bakshi Holdings (P) Ltd.
Acting through its Director, Madhurima Bakshi, 15th Floor, Mohan Dev Building, 13 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi - 110001 Email: [email protected]
9. Mr. Deepak Parekh Chairman, Housing Development Finance Corporation, Ramon House, 169 Backbay Reclamation Area, H.T. Parekh Marg, Mumbai - 400020.
Email: [email protected]
10. Mr. Keki Mistry ViceChairman and CEO, Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., Ramon House, 169 Backbay Reclamation Area, H.T. Parekh Marg, Mumbai - 400020 Email: keki.mistry @ hdfc.com
11. Mr. V. Srinivasa Rangan, Executive Director, Housing Development Finance Corporation, Ramon House, 169, Backbay Reclamation Area, CS 161/14 Deepak Khosla Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation Bank & Ors. 3/16 H.T. Parekh Marg, Mumbai - 400920 Email: [email protected]
12. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Jha Head Corporate Finance Corporation Ramon House, 169 Backbay Reclamation Area, H.T. Parekh Marg, Mumbai - 400020 Email: [email protected]
13. Mr. Girish Koliyote Company Secretary, Housing Development Finance Corporation, Ramon House, 169, Backbay Reclamtion Area, H.T. Parekh Marg, Mumbai 400020.
14. Ms. Madhumita Ganguli Member of Executive Management and Credit HeadDelhi, HDFC Ltd., HDFC House, Olof Palme Marg, Munirka, New Delhi Email: [email protected]
15. Mr. Vasant S. Operations Manager HDFC House, Olof Palme Marg, Munirka, New Delhi Email: [email protected]
16. Mr. Prosenjit Gupta Additional Senior General Manager, Housing Development Finance Corporation, CS 161/14 Deepak Khosla Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation Bank & Ors. 4/16 Ramon House, 169 Backbay Reclamation Area, H.T. Parekh Marg, Mumbai - 400020 Email: [email protected]
17. Mr. Satarupa Mitra Deputy Manager, HDFC Ltd.
HDFC House, Olof Palme Marg, Munirka, New Delhi.
Email: c/o [email protected]
18. Mr. Vinod Surha Director, AscotEstates (Manesar) (P) Ltd.
15th Floor, Mohan Dev Building, 13 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi - 110001.
Email: Vinod Surha @Yahoo.com
19. Mr. Wadia Parkash (then) Director Ascot Estates (Manesar) (P) Ltd.
15th Floor, Mohan Dev Building, 13 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi - 110001.
Email: [email protected] .....Defendants
20. Registrar of Companies IFCI Towers, Nehru Place, New Delhi Email: [email protected] .....Proposed Defendants Date of Institution: 24.04.2014 Date of Arguments: 23.08.2014 Date of Order: 18.10.2014 CS 161/14 Deepak Khosla Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation Bank & Ors. 5/16 Suit for Declaration, Permanent & Mandatory Injunction Order:
1. Vide this order I shall dispose off various objections raised by the defendants regarding maintainability of the present Suit for Declaration and Permanent and Mandatory Injunction.
2. The Suit was instituted on 24.04.2014 against 20 persons / companies as defendants. Summons were issued to all the defendants and appearance has been caused by defendants No.1 to 3, 7 to 17, 19 & 20. None appeared for defendants No. 4, 5, 6 and 18 i.e. Connaught Plaza Restaurants (P) Ltd., McDonald's India Pvt. Ltd, McDonald's Corporation USA and Mr. Vinod Surha. Oral objections regarding maintainability of the Suit were raised by all the defendants who caused appearance.
3. The grounds on which objections were raised by the defendants are as under:
a) No locus standi.
b) No privity of contract.
c) No statutory notice under Section 80 CPC to
Registrar of Companies i.e. Defendant No.20.
d) Prayers of the plaint are such which cannot be granted.
e) Derivative rights are unknown in India.
4. Defendants relied upon the following case laws to support their contentions towards objections raised by them:
i) S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath:AIR 1994 SC 853.
ii) M.C. Chacko Vs. State Bank of Travancore:
(1969) 2 SCC 343.
CS 161/14 Deepak Khosla Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation Bank & Ors. 6/16
iii) Babita Pal & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Bansal : 196 (2013) DLT 792 (DB).
iv) Union of India Vs. R.P. Dhir & Ors. : (1990) ILR 2 Delhi 433.
v) Sant Singh Vs. K.G. Ringshia: 2010 (6) ILR (Delhi) 203.
vi) Kerala State Manufacturing Fed. Ltd. Vs. UOI:
2010(172) DLT 691.
vii) Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors. Vs. Nirmala Devi & Ors.:(2011) 8 SCC 249.
viii) T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal: (1977) 4 SCC 467.
ix) State Bank of Travancore Vs. Kingstone Computers India Pvt. Ltd. : (2011) 11 SCC 524.
x) M/s Nibro Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company:
AIR 1991 Delhi 25.
xi) Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal & Anr.:(2008) 17 SCC 491.
xii) Bishundeo Narain & Anr. Vs. Seogeni Rai & Jagernath: (1951) SCR 548
xiii) Sh. Mohinder Singh Verma Vs. JPS Verma & Anr: CS (OS) 1419/07 dated 21.03.2014 (Delhi High Court).
5. Defendant also argued that the Suit being completely frivolous should be dismissed with costs and relied upon M/s Jagdamba Impex Vs. M/s Tristar Products Pvt. Ltd. : PAO no. 128/14 & CM No. 777879/14 decided on 05.05.2014 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
6. Plaintiff instituted the present Suit averring that he is a shareholder of defendant No.6 company i.e. McDonald's Corporation. It is the parent company of McDonald's India Pvt. Ltd. Mr. Vikram Bakshi and McDonald's India Pvt. Ltd. formed a joint venture in the year 1995 in the form of Connaught Plaza Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. by executing a joint venture agreement. As per Clause 30 of the joint venture agreement no shares in the joint venture company could be transferred, CS 161/14 Deepak Khosla Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation Bank & Ors. 7/16 assigned or encumbered by either party, voluntarily or involuntarily, without the written consent of other joint venture Party. Vikram Bakshi promoted a company in the name of Ascot Estates (Manasar) Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2008 along with his wife. He also formed Ascot Hotels and Resorts Ltd. in or around 1996. In the year 2011, loan facility was extended to Ascot Manesar by HDFC and to avail the said loan Vikram Bakshi pledged his shares of the joint venture to HDFC Bank regarding which a statement in Form 8 was filed by HDFC Bank with Registrar of Companies. McDonald's became aware of the said pledge and refused to agree to the continuation of Sh. Vikram Bakshi as Managing Director of Connaught Plaza Restaurants (P) Ltd. A note was placed in this regard in the Board Meeting after which McDonald's India Pvt. Ltd. exercised its rights set out in clause 32 of the joint venture agreement and invoked the call option thereby demanding that the shares of Vikram Bakshi as per joint venture agreement be transferred to it. Thereafter Vikram Bakshi along with Bakshi Holdings Pvt. Ltd. jointly filed the company petition before the Hon'ble Company Law Board under Sections 397, 399, 402, 403 and 406 of the Companies Act, 1956. In the said petition Sh. Vikram Bakshi deliberately suppressed the information that he had pledged his shares of Connaught Plaza Restaurants (P) Ltd. to HDFC Bank. Thereafter Vikram Bakshi through defendant No.3 caused for filing of another Form 8 by HDFC in connection with the loan facility. McDonald's India Pvt. Ltd. filed a reply to the Company petition highlighting about pledging of shares. Rejoinder was filed by Mr. Vikram Bakshi in the said matter wherein he denied that there is any encumbrance of the joint venture shares by him. A termination notice was issued by McDonald's India terminating the joint venture agreement and it also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the Hon'ble CS 161/14 Deepak Khosla Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation Bank & Ors. 8/16 High Court of Delhi. Mr. Vikram Bakshi, however, constrained McDonald's to obtain a consent order before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, wherein it was highlighted that as per the case set out by Vikram Bakshi before Ld. Company Law Board, there is no pledge with respect to the shares of joint venture. Form 17 by HDFC and Ascot Manesar was uploaded on the website of RoC showing that there was no encumbrance on the joint venture shares. Vikram Bakshi thereby concealed from Ld. Company Law Board that he had encumbered the shares of joint venture and hence violated the joint venture agreement. Plaintiff applied for impleadment before Ld. Company Law Board but his application was not allowed. Hence, plaintiff approached this Court seeking various reliefs.
7. The relief sought in the plaint are as under:
"i) Pass a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, thereby declaring that the 51,300 equity shares in defendant No.4 Company [viz.
In Connaught Plaza Restaurants (P) Ltd.] issued to and owned by defendant No.7 Company [viz. Bakshi Holdings (P) Ltd] were pledged or encumbered in some other manner in favour of the defendant No.1 (HDFC) as of, or before, 11.10.2011.
ii) Pass a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, thereby declaring that the 51,300 equity shares in defendant No.4 Company [viz. In Connaught Plaza Restaurants (P) Ltd.] issued to and owned by defendant No.7 company [viz. Bakshi Holdings (P) stood pledge or encumbered in some other manner in favour of defendant No.1 (HDFC) as of, or after, 02.12.2013.
iii) Pass a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, thereby declaring that the 51,300 equity shares in defendant No.4 company [viz. In Connaught Plaza Restaurants (P) Ltd.] stood pledged or encumbered in some other manner in favour of defendant No.1 (HDFC) as of, or after, 02.12.2013. CS 161/14 Deepak Khosla Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation Bank & Ors. 9/16
iv) In alternative to prayers i) and/or (ii) and / or (iii):
a) Pass a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, thereby declaring that the Form 8 filed by the defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 with the Registrar of Companies on or about 11.10.2011 was filed by them knowing that it contains "a statement which is false in a material particular, knowing it to be false"
within the meaning of the phrase as used in Section 628(a) of the Companies Act, 1956.
b) Consequently, pass a decree of perpetual mandatory injunction against defendant No.17 (Registration of Companies) to initiate appropriate proceedings against all culpable offenders under Section 621 of the Companies Act, 1956 for a violation of Section 628 of the Companies Act, 1956.
v) Pass a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, thereby declaring that the default of Ascot Hotels & Resorts Ltd. with HUDCO leading to its criminal prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act constitutes a violation of Clause 13.1.19 of the Master facility Agreement signed by the defendant No. 2 company with HDFC.
vi) Pass a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction against the defendant No.7 company [viz. Bakshi Holdings (P) Ltd.], restraining it and any of its Directors, agents, employees, assigns, etc. from exercising voting rights in respect of upto encumbered 51,300 shares held by it in defendant No.4 Company [Connaught Plaza Restaurants (P) Ltd.] during the pendency of the encumbrance of the shares.
vii) Pass a decree of perpetual mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, thereby directing defendant No.4 Company [Connaught Plaza Restaurants (P) Ltd.] and any of their agents, employees, CS 161/14 Deepak Khosla Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation Bank & Ors. 10/16 assigns, etc. to refuse the defendant No.7 company [viz.
Bakshi Holdings (P) Ltd.] to exercise any voting rights in respect of these encumbered 51,300 shares during the pendency of the encumbrance of the shares.
viii) Award costs to the plaintiff.
ix) Pass such other orders or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
8. When oral objections to the maintainability of the present Suit were raised by the defendants who caused appearance, plaintiff also was given liberty to advance oral arguments.
9. Lengthy arguments were advanced in the matter which started on 28.04.2014 and continued till 23.08.2014. During the arguments, various case laws and commentaries were referred by the plaintiff. Plaintiff also filed numerous documents running into hundreds of pages to support his arguments. One of the reason why Order in the present matter is being pronounced after almost 2 months of completion of arguments is the numerous documents filed by the plaintiff. It shall not be possible to put on record each and every argument advanced by the plaintiff, however, the arguments in a nutshell are being mentioned in the forthcoming paragraph.
10. Plaintiff argued that he is the shareholder of McDonald's Corporation, which is a company incorporated under the Laws of United States of America. McDonald's Corporation is carrying out its business in India through McDonald's India Pvt. Ltd. The joint venture agreement between McDonald's India Pvt. Ltd. and Sh. Vikram Bakshi was entered in India to which McDonald's Corporation is a confirming party. The McDonald's India Pvt. Ltd. is wholly owned subsidiary of McDonald's Corporation and hence latter exercises full control over the management of former. Though each of McDonald's Corporation and CS 161/14 Deepak Khosla Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation Bank & Ors. 11/16 McDonald's India Pvt. Ltd. are separate entities in the eyes of law the corporate veil needs to be lifted in the present case as McDonald's Corporation is engaging in a fraud through McDonald's India Pvt. Ltd., thereby causing loss to its shareholders including the plaintiff. It is alleged that by not pursuing its remedies against Vikram Bakshi for pledging the shares of joint venture, McDonald's India Pvt. Ltd. is losing its right to claim call back of joint venture shares at the rate prevalent on the date of pledging of shares which may result into loss to the McDonald's Corporation and ultimately to its shareholders. He also argued that McDonald's Corporation not having taken action against Vikram Bakshi, he has approached this Court under his derivative rights being shareholder and is seeking remedies against Vikram Bakshi and other parties to the Suit. It was argued that the plaintiff cannot approach Company Law Board as requirement of Section 399 of the Companies Act, 1956 are not fulfilled in his case.
11. Plaintiff relied upon the following case laws to support his arguments:
i) Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Newman Industries & Ors. (No.2):[1980] 2 All ER (Ch D) 841.
ii) Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi :
(2012) 4 SCC 307.
iii) Dr. Satya Charan Law & Ors. Vs. Rameshwar Prasad Bajoria & Ors:1950) 020 cc 0039.
iv) Foss Vs. Harbottle: 1843. CH.2 HARE, 461 - 506.
v) Spokes Vs. The Grosvenor & West End Railway Terminus Hotel Co. Ltd. & Ors. : [1897] 2 Q B 124.
vi) Parket Vs. Lewis (187273) LR & Ch. App. 1035.
vii) Daniels & Ors. Vs. Daniels & Ors. [1978] 2 All ER 09.
viii) Walker & Ors. Vs. Stones & Ors (2000) Times, 26 September.
12. Plaintiff heavily relied upon the rule pronounced in Foss Vs. CS 161/14 Deepak Khosla Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation Bank & Ors. 12/16 Harbottle and contended that the shareholder was entitled to bring a Civil Suit in case of oppression of minority, fraud and mismanagement etc. He filed numerous financial documents to suggest that McDonalds's India Pvt. Limited was an extension of MCDonald's USA and hence these two companies are one entity in reality. The joint venture agreement, Form 8 etc. are also placed on record which have been perused.
13. The objection regarding lack of statutory notice to Registrar of companies (ROC) is immaterial as ROC appeared in the Court and 2 months have elapsed since issuance of notice of the present Suit which can be equated to statutory notice.
14. However, the objections relating to locus standi of the plaintiff and privity of contract are material and shall bar the Suit if found against the plaintiff.
15. Plaintiff claimed locus standi on the ground that he is the shareholder of McDonald's Corporation. It is a matter of record that plaintiff had invoked the jurisdiction of Company Law Board as well on the similar grounds and his plea was dismissed on the ground that he was an outsider to the affairs of McDonald's India Pvt. Ltd. and the joint venture Connaught Plaza Restaurants (P) Ltd. Order of Ld. Company Law Board was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide order dated 28.04.2014 wherein it was again observed that the plaintiff was an outsider to the affairs of aforesaid two companies. In the present Suit, plaintiff has approached the Court under the premise that McDonald's India Pvt. Ltd. is not taking any action against Vikram Bakshi for breach of joint venture agreement. McDonald's India Pvt. Ltd. is completely owned and funded by McDonald's Corporation USA. Any loss to McDonald's India Pvt. Ltd. or any mismanagement in the affairs of McDonald's India Pvt. Ltd. shall affect CS 161/14 Deepak Khosla Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation Bank & Ors. 13/16 McDonald's Corporation USA and in turn its shareholders. Hence, plaintiff being one of the shareholders of McDonald's USA is an effected party and therefore has locus standi to institute the present Suit.
16. Though I am not inclined to accept the line of argument put forth by the plaintiff for the simple reason that the Corporate veil was not lifted even by Ld. CLB and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the plaintiff was considered an outsider to the affiairs of McDonald's India Pvt. Ltd., however, even if the aforesaid argument is accepted for the sake of it, it is clear that the plaintiff is alleging fraud / oppression and mismanagement in the affiars of McDonald's Corporation which is a company incorporated under the US Laws and hence governed by the US Laws. A shareholder of this company shall have remedies available as per US Laws which cannot be enforced by the Indian Courts. The allegation of mismanagement in the affairs of McDonald's USA with respect to its operation in India through McDonald's India Pvt. Ltd. will have to be seen and investigated as per US Laws as Companies Act, 1956, does not cover foreign companies. Therefore, plaintiff cannot approach this Court on the premise that he is the aggrieved shareholder of McDonald's Corporation as it is conducting business through McDonald's India Pvt. Ltd. in India which is committing fraud in connivance with Sh. Vikram Bakshi.
17. If the aforesaid arguments is not accepted and it is assumed that the present Suit before this Court contains averments of mismanagement in McDonald's India Pvt. Ltd. as a separate entity, then plaintiff is an outsider being not a shareholder of McDonald's India Pvt. Ltd. and hence cannot approach this Court due to lack of locus standi.
18. Similarly, the Suit would also be barred by the Principle of Privity of CS 161/14 Deepak Khosla Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation Bank & Ors. 14/16 Contract as the issue in the present Suit revolves around the breach of a joint venture agreement to which the plaintiff is not a party and McDonald's USA is only a confirming party. Even if it is assumed that the Principle of Privity of Contract shall not apply to the plaintiff as McDonald's USA is a confirming party to the joint venture agreement and the plaintiff is a shareholder of McDonald's USA, the plaintiff can direct his grievance only against McDonald's USA in the manner provided under US Laws, latter being a company incorporated therein.
19. In the prayer clause the plaintiff is seeking declaration to the effect that shares of Bakshi Holdings Pvt. Ltd. in Connaught Plaza Restaurants (P) Ltd. were pledged with HDFC and permanent mandatory injunction to the effect that Bakshi Holding Pvt. Ltd. be restrained from exercising voting rights in Connaught Plaza Restaurants (P) Ltd. Such declaration and injunction cannot be granted in favour of the plaintiff as he has no personal interest in the matter being a stranger to the affairs of Connaught Plaza Restaurants (P) Ltd. and if he claims any locus standi being shareholder of McDonald's Corporation, he can seek redressal of his grievance only as per US Laws.
20. Plaintiff is also seeking declaration that offence under Section 628(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 was committed by HDFC and Ascot Estates (Manesar) Pvt. Ltd. and a direction to the RoC to take action against them under Section 621 of the Companies Act 1956. Such a prayer again cannot be granted firstly because the plaintiff is a stranger to the affairs of Ascot Estates (Manesar) Pvt. Ltd., as well as Connaught Plaza Restaurants (P) Ltd. Secondly, such a declaration would amount to holding defendant No.1 & 2 guilty of an offence without having them faced trial as per Cr.P.C. and other rules of Criminal Law. The basic jurisprudence of Civil Law and Criminal Law is entirely different. In Civil CS 161/14 Deepak Khosla Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation Bank & Ors. 15/16 Law the evidence is appreciated on balance of probabilities while in Criminal Law proof has to be led beyond reasonable doubt. The declaration of the nature sought in the present Suit will violate this basic principle of appreciation of evidence in Civil Law and Criminal Law as well as the principle of natural justice as it would amount to holding the defendants guilty of an offence in a trial under Civil Law.
21. The issue whether Vikram Bakshi pledged shares of Connaught Plaza Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. is already a subject matter of the proceedings before Ld. CLB in a petition filed by Vikram Bakshi against McDonald's India Pvt. Ltd. Any decision in the matter by this Court would amount to hijacking the jurisdiction of Ld. CLB.
22. Resultantly, the objections raised by the defendants have merits. The present Suit is barred by the Principle of locus standi as well as by the Principle of Privity of Contract. The suit is also barred by the Principles of Natural Justice as it seeks to hold criminal trial by following Civil Procedure which is against the basic tenets of criminal jurisprudence. Plaintiff not having any locus standi has not been able to disclose any cause of action in his favour.
23. Accordingly, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a) CPC and Rule 11(d) CPC. Rejected therefore. Let a decree sheet of rejection be prepared.
24. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court.
On 18.10.2014 (JYOTI KLER)
ASCJ/JSCC /Gdn.JUDGE
SOUTHEAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS 161/14 Deepak Khosla Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation Bank & Ors. 16/16