Delhi District Court
United Sports Traders (Delhi) vs Sachdeva Sons Enteprises Pvt. Ltd on 27 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR
ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CENTRAL) 04,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS No. 276/12
UNITED SPORTS TRADERS (DELHI) ,
PRIVATE LTD., 107-C, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
PHASE -III, NEW DELHI
............... PLAINTIFF.
V/s
SACHDEVA SONS ENTEPRISES PVT. LTD.
107-C, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
PHASE-III, NEW DELHI
ALSO AT :
A-28, & A-29, SECTOR-8,
NOIDA (UP)
...............DEFENDANT.
DATE OF INSTITUTION :28.02.2003
DATE OF ARGUMENTS :10.05.2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT :27.05.2014.
(SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION)
JUDGMENT
By this judgment, I shall dispose of suit, entitled as, United Sports Traders (Delhi) Vs. Sachdeva sons Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. , bearing suit no. 276/12. The present suit has been filed for permanent and mandatory injunction. It has been prayed that a decree for permanent injunction, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant be passed, thereby restraining the defendant, his servants, agents, employees etc., from entering in the suit premises, in any manner. It has further been prayed that a decree of mandatory injunction be also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, thereby requiring the defendant to remove the security put up by him, at the suit premises. It has also been prayed that a decree of permanent injunction, thereby restraining the defendant, his servants, agents, employees etc. from interfering in the peaceful user, occupation and possession of the plaintiff of the suit premises and also from interfering with the ingress and egress of the plaintiff, its employee, customers,material etc. be also passed, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. It has also been prayed that defendants be also restrained from creating any third party rights of any nature, whatsoever in the suit premises.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at 107-C, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the owner of the said property. It is further the case of the plaintiff that he is the original allottee of the suit premises from the office of Directorate of Industries, Delhi Administration, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, vide lease deed 09.07.1965. As such the plaintiff is entitled to use, occupy and possess exclusively the suit property. It is further the case of the plaintiff that, the present suit is being filed by the plaintiff through its Chairman and Managing Director, Shri Mahinder Singh Kohli, who is authorized under the Memorandum and Articles of Associates of the plaintiff to file the present suit. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the defendant company is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the defendant through its Director Shri Parminder Sachdev approached the plaintiff in the year, 1980 for appointing the plaintiff as its Manufacturing/servicing Agent. It is further the case of the plaintiff that defendant represented that it is carrying on business of manufacture of furniture and allied goods. It is further the case of the plaintiff that, it is represented that is shall pay to the plaintiff supervision and processing charges at the agreed rate and shall also provide technical skill, guidance, assistance as well as labour to the plaintiff to be employed in manufacture of the goods of the defendant by the plaintiff. It is further the case of the plaintiff that, a Deed of Agency was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the said Deed was renewed, from time to time and the last of the Deed of Agency was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant on 01.11.1984, for a period of 24 months commencing from 01.11.1984. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the material terms of the renewal of Deed of Agency dated 01.11.1084 was executed by the plaintiff though its the then Director, Shri Mahinder Mohan Kohli and the defendant through its Director, Shri Parminder Sadheva. It is further the case of the plaintiff and the defendant that, prior to the execution of the said Renewal of Deed of Agency, dated 01.11.1984, between the plaintiff and the defendant, one of the Director of the plaintiff, namely, Shri Vijay Mohan Kohli has tendered his resignation as Director of the plaintiff, vide his letter dated 30.8.1984. Pursuant to the said letter of resignation of Shri Vijay Mohan Kohli , the necessary Form No. 32 was signed by him and filed an registered by the plaintiff with the Registrar of Companies, Delhi & Haryana. It is further the case of the plaintiff that, at the time of execution of the said Deed dated 01.11.1984, between the plaintiff and the defendant, the said Vijay Mohan Kohli was not in any manner associated with the plaintiff. It is further the case of the plaintiff that, the defendant continued to pay to the plaintiff, supervision and processing charges, in terms of the Renewal of Deed of Agency dated 01.11.1984. Significantly, the amount payable by the defendant to the plaintiff varied each month, with the amount of work done by the plaintiff for the defendant till the end of the year, 1987. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the occupation and possession of the suit premises remained exclusively with the plaintiff. It is further the case of the plaintiff that, it was also provided in the said Deed that the defendant shall not claim to be a tenant and/or Licensee of the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises. It is further the case of the plaintiff that, the said Vijay Mohan Kohli belatedly, and a view to create unnecessary hurdles in the functioning of the plaintiff, as also with a view to garb the suit premises, which belong to the plaintiff falsely claimed that his resignation letter dated 30.8.1984 was a forged and fabricated document, as also the signatures of Smt. Leela Wanti Kohli, the then Managing Director of the plaintiff were forged by Shri Mahinder Mohan Kohli on the Form-32 filed by the plaintiff with the Registrar of Companies, Delhi. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the cause of action for filing the present suit arose on 21.3.2003, when the defendant put his security at the suit premises of the plaintiff which created hurdles in the ingress and egress of the plaintiff, its officers, customers, employees etc. to the suit premises. It is further the case of the plaintiff that, the said security continues to interfere in the ingress and egress of the plaintiff, its officers, customers, employees etc. to the suit premises till date, despite the fact that no material or belongings of the defendant are lying in the suit premises. It has been prayed that the suit be decreed with interest as well as with costs, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, as prayed for by the plaintiff.
3) In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant, it is the case of the defendant, that the present suit is false, frivolous, vexatious and abuse of law, therefore, the present suit is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. It is further the case of the defendant that the plaintiff has no cause of action to proceed against the defendant, thus the present suit is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action. It is further the case of the defendant that the present suit is not maintainable against the defendant. It is further the case of the defendant that the present suit is not maintainable in the present form. It is further the case of the defendant that the defendant is in settled lawful possession of the suit property no. 107-C, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi and the suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from entering the premises or for mandatory injunction, requiring the defendant to remove its personnel from the premises does not lie. It is further the case of the defendant that, the suit has not been filed and the plaint has not been signed and verified by a duly authorised person on behalf of the plaintiff company. It is further the case of the defendant that, the present suit is not valued properly for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. It has been prayed that the present suit be dismissed with costs.
4). Replication to the written statement of defendant filed. In the replication, the plaintiff reiterated the facts as mentioned in the plaint.
5). In the present matter, Shri Mahender Mohan Kohli examined himself as PW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit. The same is ExtPW1/A which bears his signature at point A and B. PW1, had deposed the facts, in the Affidavit, as stated by him in his plaint. He relied upon the documents i.e. ExtPW1/1 to ExtPW1/11. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of the defendant. In his cross-examination, this witness denied that he is not competent to file the present suit. He denied that Form-32, filed by him on record is a procured document from the office of ROC. He denied that his brother, Vijay Mohan Kohli had never resigned as a Director from the Company. He further deposed that, he was aware that in the inter-pleader suit filed by the defendant against the company, there was an order of the court, directing the defendant to deposit the charges, at the rate of Rs.4125/- per month. He further denied that his present suit is false and he has concealed the fact of his application filed by him in the inter-pleader suit. He denied that the defendant had handed over to him the premises in January, 2002, but there was a conversation to this effect but it was never materialized.
6) In the present matter, Shri Parminder Sachdev, defendant examined himself as DW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit. The same is Ext.DW-1, which bears his signature at point A and B. This witness relied upon the Ext.DW1/1 to Ext.DW1/18. DW1 had deposed the facts, in the Affidavit, as stated by him in his plaint. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff. In his cross-examination, this witness admitted that United Sports Traders (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. Is the owner of the suit premises. He further admitted that the renewal agreement dated 01.11.1984 was executed by Shri M.M. Kohli as Director for and and on behalf of the company. He further stated that it was correct that, as per clause 12 of the said agreement, he was supposed to pay Rs.4125/- to the plaintiff company for the inculcation as mentioned in clause 12 of Ext.PW1/3. This witness denied that he had forcibly tress-passed and entered in the suit property and have put the Security Guards at the entrance of the area under his possession. He further denied that the physical possession of the premises remained with the plaintiff company.
7). On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed, by ld. Predecessor of this court, for consideration.-
(i) Whether the plaint has not been signed and
verified by a duly authorised person?OPD.
(ii) Whether the suit is liable to be stayed under
section 19 of the CPC? OPD
(iii) Whether the suit is barred by section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963? OPD
(iv) Whether the defendant settled lawful possession before filing the present suit? OPD
(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession of the suit property from the defendant?
OPP.
(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any mesne profits and damages from the defendant? If so, for what period and at what rate?OPP
(vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed?OPP.
8) It has been contended by ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff has proved its case. It has further been contended that the plaintiff is the owner of the said property. It has further been contended that the plaintiff is the original allottee of the suit premises, from the office of Directorate of Industries, Delhi Administration, Kashmere Gate, Delhi vide lease deed 09.07.1965 and as such the plaintiff is entitled to use, occupy and possess exclusively the suit premises. It has further been contended that the present suit is being filed by the plaintiff through its Chairman and Managing Director Shri Mahinder Singh Kohli, who is authorized under the Memorandum and Articles of Associates of the plaintiff to file the present suit. It has further been contended that Shri Vijay Mohan Kohli belatedly, and with a view to create unnecessary hurdles in the functioning of the plaintiff as also with a view to garb the suit premises which belong to the plaintiff falsely claimed that his resignation letter dated 30.8.1984 was a forged and fabricated document as also the signatures of Smt. Leela Wanti Kohli, the then Managing Director of the plaintiff were forged by Shri Mahinder Mohan Kohli on the Form-32 filed by the plaintiff with the Registrar of Companies, Delhi. It has further been contended that the cause of action for filing the present suit arose on 21.3.2003, when the defendant put his security at the suit premises of the plaintiff which created hurdles in the ingress and egress of the plaintiff, its officers, customers, employees etc. to the suit premises. It has been prayed that the suit be decreed with interest as well as with costs, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, as prayed for by the plaintiff.
9). On the other hand, it has been contended by ld. Counsel for the defendant that the present suit has been filed just to harass the defendants. It has further been contended that present suit is not maintainable in the eyes of law as the plaintiff has deliberately and intentionally relied upon the false and fabricated facts and circumstances and had suppressed the true contents in the suit. It has further been contended that no cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. It has been prayed that the present suit be dismissed with exemplary costs.
10). I have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties and have gone through the record file carefully.
11) In the present matter, vide its order dated 06.12.2010, the issues no. 5 and 6 have been deleted by ld. Predecessor of this court.
12). My issue wise findings are as under-
Issue no. 7.
Issue no. 7 is being treated as a main issue.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed?OPP.
13) In the present matter, the issue no.7 is taken up as the main issue. It has been contended on behalf of ld. Counsel for the defendant that it has deposited the keys, in the present case, before the Deputy Registrar (Writ Branch) of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, as per order dated 26.4.2013, passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Copy of this order has already been placed on the record file. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has stated that, since the keys have already been deposited before the Deputy Registrar (Writ Branch) of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, as per order dated 26.4.2013, passed by Hon'ble Justice Shri Rajiv Shakdhar of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi there is nothing in the present suit to pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his servants, agents, employees etc. in any manner, from interfering in the peaceful user, occupation and possession of the plaintiff of the suit premises and also from interfering with the ingress and egress of the plaintiff, its employees, customers, material etc. and also restraining the defendant from creating third party rights of any nature whatsoever in the suit premises, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
14) Issue no.1.
Whether the plaint has not been signed and
verified by a duly authorised person?OPD
In the present matter, it has been argued on behalf of the defendant that he is not pressing the Issue no. 1, regarding the fact that the plaint has not been signed or verified by a duly authorised person. Hence, there is no need to give a separate observations on this point. Since this issue has not been pressed on behalf of the defendant, no observations are being given on the said issue.
15). Issue No.2 Whether the suit is liable to be stayed under section 19 of the CPC? OPD Like Issue no.1, the issue no.2 has not been pressed on behalf of the defendant. Burden of proof to this issue was on the defendant. No submissions have been made on behalf of the parties. Hence, there is no requirement to give any separate finding on this issue.
16). Issue no.3.
Whether the suit is barred by section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963? OPD In the present matter, the issue no.3 is regarding the fact as to whether the suit is barred by section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The issue no.3 has also not been pressed on behalf of the parties. No submissions have been advanced on behalf of both the parties in this regard. Hence, there is no requirement to give any separate finding on this issue.
17). Issue no. 4.
Whether the defendant settled lawful possession before filing the present suit? OPD Like Issue no.1 and 2 the issue no.4 has also not been pressed on behalf of the defendant. Burden of proof to this issue was also on the defendant. No submissions have been made on behalf of the parties. Hence, there is no requirement to give any separate finding on this issue.
18) It may be mentioned here that keys in the present matter have already been deposited, as per order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Hence, there is nothing on the record file to show that defendant can part with the suit premises.
19) In view of my findings on issue no.1 to the effect that defendant has deposited the keys, as per order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and now it cannot part with the possession of the suit premises, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief, as claimed by him, in the present suit. The present suit deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present suit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (RAMESH KUMAR)
today i.e. 27.05.2014 ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI