Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Kvs Flexxifoils vs M/S Sudha Converting Machinery Pvt Ltd. ... on 6 October, 2021
Author: Amit Bansal
Bench: Amit Bansal
$~55
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 686/2021
M/S KVS FLEXXIFOILS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate.
versus
M/S SUDHA CONVERTING MACHINERY PVT LTD. & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
ORDER
% 06.10.2021 CM No.35228/2021 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
CM(M) 686/2021 & CM No.35227/2021(for stay)
3. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 5th April, 2021 passed in Civil Suit No.191/2020 whereby the application filed on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) has been dismissed.
4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an admitted position that a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid by the petitioner to the defendants. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that there was no clause in the agreement between the parties that gave a right to the respondents/defendants to forfeit the advance payment made on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the admission of receipt of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAMTA ARYA CM(M) 686/2021 Page 1 of 3 Signing Date:07.10.2021 13:11:06 Rs.10,00,000/-, the suit should have been decreed to the extent of the aforesaid amount.
5. I have gone through the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court. It is a detailed judgment passed after considering various judgments cited on behalf of the parties. All the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioners have been considered and distinguished in the impugned judgment. In this regard reference may be made to paragraphs 61 and 62 of the impugned order which is set out below:
"61. With all due deference and humility at my command, it is observed that the judgments De-Smet (India) Private Ltd. v. B.P. Industrial Corporation (P) Ltd.; Lalit Kumar Bagla v. Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (CS) Ltd.; Baldev Steel Ltd. v. Empire Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. & Anr. and M/s Entrepreneurs Co-op Group Housing Society Ltd. v. M/s Schindler India Pvt. Ltd. relied by the plaintiff do not take its case any far, as the same were passed on the fact in issue of a forfeiture of money after a full-blown trial. In the case at hand, we have not yet even made it to the „first hearing‟.
62. Regarding the judgments of Krishan Kumar Wadhwa v. Som Dutt and Vinay Kumar Aggarwal v. Radha Rani Aggarwal relied upon by the plaintiff, this court is in complete concurrence with the legal principle of Order XII, Rule 6- judgment on admission, however, the same would not come to the rescue of the plaintiff as it is found that the admissions made by the defendants are neither clear, unambiguous nor conclusive."
6. The Trial Court in the impugned judgment has noted that the case set up by the respondents in their written statement was that the petitioner failed to pay full price of the customized machinery and therefore the advance Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAMTA ARYA CM(M) 686/2021 Page 2 of 3 Signing Date:07.10.2021 13:11:06 money of Rs.10,00,000/- was forfeited and that the respondents have filed a separate suit against the plaintiff in Gujarat on account of losses suffered by the respondents on account of decreased sale of the machinery. Undoubtedly, the respondent has admitted the receipt of Rs.10,00,000/- from the petitioner but the case set up by the respondents is that they had a right to forfeit the aforesaid amount on account of the petitioner not making the balance payment. Whether the respondents had the right to forfeit the aforesaid amount or not is something to be established in the trial. It has rightly been held by the Trial Court, that this cannot be subject matter of an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
7. Trial Court has passed a detailed and well-reasoned judgement taking into account all submissions made by the parties. No grounds for interference of this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are made out. Dismissed.
8. In view of the above order, CM No.35227/2021 stands dismissed.
AMIT BANSAL, J OCTOBER 6, 2021 ak Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAMTA ARYA CM(M) 686/2021 Page 3 of 3 Signing Date:07.10.2021 13:11:06