Delhi High Court - Orders
Bkp Enterprise & Anr vs Spicejet Limited on 9 November, 2020
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
I.A.No.10326/2020 in
+ CS(COMM)No.1118/2016
BKP ENTERPRISE & ANR .....Plaintiffs
Through : Mr. Jayant Mehta and Mr. Bhuvan
Mishra, Advs.
versus
SPICEJET LIMITED .....Defendant
Through : Mr. Sudhanshu Batra, Sr. Adv. With
Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Ms. Naina
Dubey and Ms. Chaitra Bhat, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 09.11.2020 [Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19] I.A. No. 10326/2020
1. This is an application whereby, in effect, a direction is sought qua the defendant to deposit of a sum of Rs. 7.13 crores in Court so as to obviate a situation where, if the plaintiffs succeed, they may be left with a paper decree.
2. It is not disputed by Mr. Jayant Mehta, who appears on behalf of the plaintiffs, that evidence in the suit has been recorded and the suit is ripe for final hearing.
CS(COMM)No.1118/2016 page 1 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:10.11.2020 14:58:23
3. Mr. Sudhanshu Batra, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the defendant, points out that I.A. No. 10015/2016, which was filed under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [in short "CPC"], was dismissed on 16.12.2016 with liberty to the plaintiffs to file a fresh application. 3.1 Mr. Batra also draws my attention to the fact that a fresh application i.e. I.A. No. 720/2017 was filed by the plaintiffs, thereafter, under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC, which was also dismissed by the Court on 02.05.2017.
3.2 Given these circumstances, Mr. Batra says that the captioned application, in sum and substance, is an application of the like nature and need not be entertained.
4. Mr. Mehta, on the other hand, submits that given the financial position of the defendant, the interests of the plaintiffs are required to be protected.
4.1 According to Mr. Mehta, the net worth of the defendant stands completely eroded. For this purpose, Mr. Mehta has relied upon the unaudited balance sheet of the defendant.
5. I have considered the submissions made by Mr. Mehta and Mr. Batra at some length.
CS(COMM)No.1118/2016 page 2 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:10.11.2020 14:58:23
6. In my view, since the suit is ripe for hearing, at this juncture, to pass an order of the kind that Mr. Mehta seeks, would not, to my mind, be a just approach.
6.1 If the defendant is in severe financial difficulty, as contended, and is, perhaps, hurtling towards insolvency, an order of this kind will, in a sense, give security to the plaintiffs which the other unsecured creditors may not have.
7. Therefore, if the plaintiffs are, ultimately, able to prove that they are entitled to a decree, they would have to stand in the queue and claim the money, in the event, the defendant is not able to satisfy the decree.
8. Thus, as indicated above, I am not inclined to pass any direction in the captioned application as of now.
9. Accordingly, the captioned application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
NOVEMBER 09, 2020
aj
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
CS(COMM)No.1118/2016 page 3 of 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:10.11.2020
14:58:23