Delhi High Court - Orders
Krishna Kumar Agrawal & Anr vs Anand Divine Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 12 May, 2022
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 28/2022, CRL.M.A 9239/2022 &
EX.APPL.(OS) 162/2022.
KRISHNA KUMAR AGRAWAL & ANR. ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pardeep Dhingra, Mr. Nikhil Joshi
and Mr. Divyam Khera, Advocates.
versus
ANAND DIVINE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ORS. ... Respondent
Through: Mr. Krish Kalra and Mr. Kartik Nayar,
Advocates for JD-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 12.05.2022
1. The instant execution petition seeks compliance of a Settlement Agreement dated 24th March, 2021, which was executed between all the parties to the instant suit.
2. At the outset, CIRP proceeding are stated to have been initiated against Respondent No. 1 - M/s Anand Divine Developers Pvt. Ltd. Though the counsel for the parties have orally mentioned further developments in the said proceedings, however, entire text of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal has not been shown to the Court.
3. Be that as it may, according to the Petitioner, the terms of the Settlement Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 28/2022 Page 1 of 4 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:13.05.2022 20:45:08 Agreement have been breached. Mr. Pardeep Dhingra, counsel for the Petitioner states that the assured payment of approximately Rs. 50.64 lakh has not been paid. Further, the loan from ICICI Bank which was required to be settled by the second and third parties to the Settlement Agreement has also not been done. Resultantly, ICICI Bank has initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 as well as under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882. He further states that under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, in the event of default, the Petitioner is entitled to the interest on the amount, which, according to them, as on 23rd January, 2022, works out to Rs. 2,86,16,706/-.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Krish Kalra, counsel for Respondent No. 2 - M/s ATS Infrastructure Ltd., contends that there were defaults of obligations on the part of the Petitioner from 1st December, 2021. The Petitioner did not withdraw the cases filed by him against the Respondents, as agreed under Clause 8 of the Settlement Agreement. It is further contended that the Petitioner also did not come forward to sell the property in question, and therefore, the timeline for executing his part of obligations under the Settlement has not even begun.
5. The afore-noted contentions are controverted by the counsel for the Petitioner who states that the proceedings initiated by them against M/s. Anand Divine Developers Pvt. Ltd. have since been withdrawn.
6. The Court has perused Clause 1 of the Settlement Agreement. It expressly Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 28/2022 Page 2 of 4 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:13.05.2022 20:45:08 authorises the second party, i.e. (M/s Anand Divine Developers Pvt. Ltd.) to sell the apartment, subject to no objection from ICICI Bank Ltd. The clause does not specifically put any other obligation on the Petitioner, as has been canvassed before this Court by by Mr. Kalra. The obligations of the two sides do not appear to be hinged on or stemming from one-other. Further, no other documents have been shown which indicate that the Respondent had called upon the Petitioner to implement the terms of the Settlement. Therefore, it prima facie appears that the settlement terms have been breached by the Respondents. In these circumstances, the consequences have to necessarily follow.
7. Before passing appropriate orders, the Court is inclined to afford an opportunity to the Respondent to redeem itself.
8. At this stage Respondent's counsel on instructions, states that the Respondents are willing, even today, to comply with the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement, which include: (a) making the payment of Rs. 50,64,917/- [principal amount], and a further payment of Rs. 12,78,237/-, and Rs. 7,50,000/- [Pre-EMI to ICICI Bank from February 2021 @ 50% as on 31st March, 2022, subject to verification] as provided under the Settlement Agreement; (b) settle all outstanding dues of ICICI Bank Ltd. and ensure that the litigation initiated by the said Bank qua the Petitioner is withdrawn; (c) furnish a no dues certificate from ICICI Bank, and (d) rate of interest is 9% p.a. (SI) payable from the date of default (being 21st December 2021) till the date of payment. He states that the above sums will be paid by the Respondents to the Petitioner by 31st December, 2022. He further states that Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 28/2022 Page 3 of 4 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:13.05.2022 20:45:08 the Bank's EMI, liability and the responsibility of closure of all court cases shall be completely taken over by Respondents.
9. Mr. Krishna Kumar Agrawal, who is present in-person, states that he is agreeable to receive the above sums, for settlement of the matter, in case the Respondent would comply with the said conditions in a time-bound manner.
10. Mr. Krish Kalra, counsel for Respondent No. 2 states that he will file the undertaking in the above terms, in the form of an affidavit, within a period of four weeks from today.
11. Re-notify on 31st May, 2022.
SANJEEV NARULA, J MAY 12, 2022 nk Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 28/2022 Page 4 of 4 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:13.05.2022 20:45:08