Delhi District Court
Dr. Sharad Chandra vs U. P. Financial Corporation & Ors. on 7 April, 2014
DR. SHARAD CHANDRA VS U. P. FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS.
IN THE COURT OF MS. RAJAT GOYAL: CJ04 (SOUTH):
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
In the matter of :
CS No. 379/2013
DR. SHARAD CHANDRA LAKHOTIA,
S/o Sh. Ram Niwas Lakhotia,
R/o E240, 1st Floor,
Greater Kailash II,
New Delhi 110019 ... Plaintiff
Versus
1. U. P. FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
Through it's Chairman,
14/88, Civil Lines, Kanpur - 208001
2. PAWAN KUMAR,
Regional Manager,
U.P. Financial Corporation,
18, Madan Mohan Malviya Marg,
Lucknow 226001
3. SURESH SHARMA,
S/o Sh. Balbir Sharma,
R/o 5, Sunder Nagar,
New Delhi
4. SHANTANU SHARMA,
S/o Sh. Suresh Sharma,
R/o 5, Sunder Nagar,
New Delhi
5. SIDDHARTHA SHARMA,
S/o Sh. Suresh Sharma,
R/o 5, Sunder Nagar,
New Delhi
CS No. 379/2013 Page 1 of 19
DR. SHARAD CHANDRA VS U. P. FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS.
6. NALINI SHARMA,
W/o Sh. Suresh Sharma,
Sole Proprietor Nalini Properties and Nalini Saree,
R/o 5, Sunder Nagar,
New Delhi
7. NALINI SAREE PVT. LTD.,
Through its Director,
Regd. Office at 135,
Defence Colony, Fly Over Market,
New Delhi
8. JASBIR CHADDHA,
R/o Flat No.303,
E544, Greater KailashII,
New Delhi
(Deleted vide order dated 09.01.2013)
... Defendants
Date of Institution : 24.08.2012
Date of Reserving Judgment : 02.04.2014
Date of Decision : 07.04.2014
J U D G M E N T
(on suit for permanent injunction)
1. This suit was filed by the plaintiff for seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants.
2. Briefly stated, case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff is the owner of property bearing flat no.101, E544, Greater Kailash, PartII, New Delhi situated on basement and ground floor on the front portion of the side road of the building E544, G. KII, New Delhi, consisting of three bedrooms, one CS No. 379/2013 Page 2 of 19 DR. SHARAD CHANDRA VS U. P. FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS.
drawing room, one kitchen, three bathrooms and common space i.e. staircase etc admeasuring around 1460 square feet with front lawn and side lane on the road side of the ground floor measuring 470 square feet (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property") having purchased the same from M/s Amar House Builders by way of registered sale deed dated 14.08.1986. That on 01/02.12.2011, plaintiff received a notice from defendant no.2 to the effect that property bearing no.E544, G. KII, New Delhi was mortgaged as collateral security by M/s Amar House Builders as guarantors for M/s Shivlok Investment Holding Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Regency Towers India Pvt. Ltd. for availing loan of Rs.160 lacs from defendant no.1. That by way of the said letter, defendant no.1 advised the plaintiff to settle account against the suit property failing which coercive recovery action shall be initiated against the suit property. That upon inquiry, plaintiff got to know that M/s Amar House Builders had mortgaged entire property bearing no. E544, G. KII, New Delhi to defendant no.1 as collateral security in the year 1996. That plaintiff replied to the above mentioned letter by way of letters dated 23.12.2011 and 16.04.2012 requesting defendant no.1 to withdraw the said letter dated 01/02.12.2011 as plaintiff had purchased the suit property in the year 1986. That plaintiff received letters dated 03.05.2012 and 04.08.2012 from defendant no.2 calling the plaintiff for one time settlement (OTS). That plaintiff is neither the mortgagee nor the principal borrower nor the guarantor for the loan availed CS No. 379/2013 Page 3 of 19 DR. SHARAD CHANDRA VS U. P. FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS.
by M/s Amar House Builders. That plaintiff had lawfully purchased the suit property in the year 1986 i.e. before the loan transaction. That defendants no.1 and 2 compromised the matter with defendants no.3 to 8 qua the six flats owned by defendants no.3 to 8 for a sum of Rs.1.48 crores. That the outstanding amount can be recovered by defendant no.1 by selling the roof of property bearing no.E544, G.KII, New Delhi. That defendants no.1 and 2 are harassing the plaintiff in collusion with defendants no. 3 to 8. Hence, the present suit for permanent injunction for restraining defendants no.1 and 2 from initiating any coercive recovery action against the suit property and also for restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property. Plaintiff has also sought a decree of permanent injunction for restraining defendants no. 3 to 8 from selling or alienating flats no.102, 103, 104, 201, 202, 301, 302 and 303 constructed on property bearing no. E544, G.KII, New Delhi.
3. Upon service of summons of the present suit, defendants appeared and filed their written statements (WS). Defendants no.1 and 2 stated in their WS that M/s Shivlok Investment Holdings Pvt. Ltd. sought a term loan of Rs.50 lacs from defendant no.1 and mortgaged property beaing no. E544, G.KII, New Delhi in favour of defendant no.1 on 15.05.1996. That M/s Regency Towers India Pvt. Ltd. sought a loan of Rs.110 lacs from defendant no.1 and created an equitable mortgage of property bearing no. E544, G.KII, CS No. 379/2013 Page 4 of 19 DR. SHARAD CHANDRA VS U. P. FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS.
New Delhi in favour of defendant no.1 on 23.08.1996. That the guarantors of the above mentioned companies submitted affidavit dated 24.04.1996 and non encumbrance certificate dated 28.08.1996 in this regard. That the present suit has been filed without any cause of action. That this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. That defendants no.1 and 2 have complete right to take action against the suit property and sell the same under Section 29 of State Financial Corporation Act (SFC Act). That plaintiff has no right over the suit property. Hence, the present suit be dismissed.
4. Defendants no. 3 to 7 in their WS submitted that there is no cause of action for filing the present suit against them. That the suit against defendants no.1 and 2 is not maintainable for want of statutory notice under Section 80 CPC. That the present suit is not maintainable under the provisions of Specific Relief Act, 1963. That the suit is bad for nonjoinder of parties. That this Court does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. That the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present suit is barred by SFC Act. That the suit is barred by limitation as proceedings were initiated by defendant no.1 way back in the year 1998. That the present suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction. That the plaint has not been properly verified. That the roof rights of property bearing no. E544, G.KII, New Delhi are vested in CS No. 379/2013 Page 5 of 19 DR. SHARAD CHANDRA VS U. P. FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS.
defendants no. 3 to 7. That defendants no. 3 to 7 have already paid and deposited their share with respect to mortgage created on property bearing no. E544, G.KII, New Delhi and no further amount remains to be paid by them. Hence, the present suit be dismissed.
5. It must be noted here that defendant no.8 was deleted from the array of parties in accordance with statement of the plaintiff dated 09.01.2013.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 06.02.2013:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against defendants no. 1 and 2 as prayed for in prayer (a) of the plaint? OPP
2. Whether the suit property was validly mortgaged as collateral security with defendant no.1 by M/s Amar House Builders on 15.05.1996? OPD1 & 2
3. If issue no. 2 is proved in affirmative, whether the money should be recovered by selling/auctioning/alienating the roof of property no. E544, G.KII, New Delhi or from the property of defendants no.3 to 7? OPP
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD
5. Whether this Court lacks the territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present suit? OPD
6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for nonservice of statutory notice on defendant no.1 under Section 80 CPC? OPD 3 to 7 CS No. 379/2013 Page 6 of 19 DR. SHARAD CHANDRA VS U. P. FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS.
7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable under Specific Relief Act? OPD 3 to 7
8. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation? OPD 3 to 7
9. Whether the suit of plaintiff has not been properly valued and proper Court fee has not been affixed? OPD 3 to 7
10.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Relief of permanent injunction against defendants no. 3 to 7 as prayed for in prayer clause (b) of the plaint? OPP
11.Relief, if any.
7. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff himself stepped into the witness box as PW1 and thereafter closed his evidence. Defendants no. 1 and 2 examined Mr. Atul Mishra (Senior Manager of defendant no.1) and Mr.Pawan Kumar (Regional Manager of defendant no.1). Defendant no. 3 stepped into the witness box as DW3 and testified on behalf of defendants no. 3 to 7.
8. I have heard the contentions of both the sides and also gone through the record carefully. My issuewise findings are as under:
ISSUES NO.1 & 2Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against defendants no. 1 and 2 as prayed for in prayer (a) of the plaint? OPP & CS No. 379/2013 Page 7 of 19 DR. SHARAD CHANDRA VS U. P. FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS.
Whether the suit property was validly mortgaged as collateral security with defendant no.1 by M/s Amar House Builders on 15.05.1996? OPD1 & 2
9. Both these issues being interrelated, are being decided together for the sake of convenience. Ld. Counsel for defendants no.1 and 2 has argued that entire property bearing no.E544, G. KII, New Delhi (including suit property) was mortgaged by way of collateral security for loans advanced to M/s Regency Tower India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Shivlok Investment Holdings Pvt. Ltd. It has further been argued that the guarantors for the said loan advanced to M/s Shivlok Investment Holdings Pvt. Ltd. were Mrs. Prakashwati Aggarwal, Mr. B. B. Aggarwal, Mrs. Seema Jain and Mrs. Alka Thakur and guarantors for the loan advanced to M/s Regency Tower India Pvt Ltd. were Mrs. Prakashwati Aggarwal and Mr. B. B. Aggarwal and that a nonencumbrance certificate dated 28.06.1996 was issued by one Mr. B. S. Tanwar Verma (advocate) regarding property bearing no.E544. It is the case of defendants themselves that property bearing no. E544, including the suit property, was mortgaged with defendant no.1 on 15.05.1996 and 23.08.1996. However, plaintiff had already purchased the suit property by way of registered sale deed dated 14.08.1986. It is not the case of defendants that plaintiff was one of the borrowers or guarantors for the loans advanced by defendant no.1 to M/s Regency Tower India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Shivlok Investment Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Infact, CS No. 379/2013 Page 8 of 19 DR. SHARAD CHANDRA VS U. P. FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS.
defendants have failed to show that plaintiff had any concern whatsoever with the loans in question. Ld. Counsel for defendants has argued that the suit property was validly mortgaged with defendant no.1 by M/s Amar House Builders (predecessorininterest of plaintiff). However, I do not find any merit in this argument. As already mentioned above, suit property was purchased by the plaintiff from M/s Amar House Builders on 14.08.1986 by way of a registered sale deed. The said registered sale deed has been tendered in evidence by plaintiff as Ex.PW1/A. Hence, it stands duly proved that plaintiff had become the valid and legal owner of the suit property by way of sale deed Ex.PW1/A way back in the year in 1986. Once the suit property was sold by M/s Amar House Builders to the plaintiff, it had absolutely no authority to mortgage the same with defendant no.1 as collateral security in the year 1996 as M/s Amar House Builders was not left with any right, title or interest in the suit property after 14.08.1986. As per the principle of nemo dat quod non habet, a person cannot confer a better title than he himself has. Thus, since M/s Amar House Builders did not have any title in the suit property after it was sold to the plaintiff, the suit property could not have been validly mortgaged by Mr. B. B. Aggarwal and Mrs. Prakashwati Aggarwal and other partners of M/s Amar House Builders in favour of defendant no.1 in the year 1986. Ld. counsel for defendants has argued that plaintiff was aware of the mortgage and that the suit property was actually mortgaged by M/s Amar House Builders in collusion with CS No. 379/2013 Page 9 of 19 DR. SHARAD CHANDRA VS U. P. FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS.
plaintiff. However, there is absolutely no averment regarding the alleged collusion in WS of defendants no. 1 and 2, nor has any evidence been led by the defendants in this regard. In the absence of any averments whatsoever or evidence to the effect that the suit property was mortgaged by M/s Amar House Builders in collusion with plaintiff, I do not find any merit in this argument of the Ld. Counsel for defendants. Thus, issue no.2 is decided in favour of plaintiff and against defendants no. 1 and 2.
10. Since it has been observed by me that no valid mortgage was created with respect to the suit property, it follows as a logical corollary that defendants no. 1 and 2 have absolutely no right to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff or to dispossess him from the suit property or to initiate any coercive recovery action against the plaintiff regarding the suit property. Ld. Counsel for defendants no. 3 to 7 has argued that plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and has concealed material facts from this Court. He has further argued that plaintiff has not filed the Annexure II to sale deed Ex.PW1/A. However, a perusal of sale deed Ex.PW1/A shows that AnnexureII was only a sketch of the flat and its surroundings. Nonfiling of the same is not material and cannot be considered to be concealment on behalf of the plaintiff. It has further been argued on behalf of defendants that as per letter dated 23.12.2011 filed by the plaintiff, plaintiff had written an earlier letter dated 07.12.2011 to CS No. 379/2013 Page 10 of 19 DR. SHARAD CHANDRA VS U. P. FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS.
defendant no.2 and that the said letter dated 07.12.2011 has deliberately not been filed by the plaintiff. Again, I do not find much merit in this argument. Admittedly, plaintiff had written a letter dated 07.12.2011 to defendants no. 1 and 2 in response to notice Ex.PW1/D. Merely because the said letter dated 07.12.2011 has not been filed by the plaintiff, it cannot be said that plaintiff has deliberately concealed the same. Defendants have failed to show that the said letter was in any way damaging to the case of the plaintiff. Hence, in my view nonfiling of letter dated 07.12.2011 is inconsequential to the present suit and no adverse inference can be drawn against the plaintiff in this regard. Thus, issue no.1 is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO.3 If issue no. 2 is proved in affirmative, whether the money should be recovered by selling/auctioning/alienating the roof of property no. E544, G.KII, New Delhi or from the property of defendants no.3 to 7? OPP
11. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that roof rights of property bearing no. E544 are still with M/s Amar House Builders and defendant no.1 should have enforced the mortgage against the roof of property bearing no. E544. However, there is no documentary evidence to prove that roof rights of property bearing no. E544 are still with M/s Amar House Builders and that the same had not been sold by M/s Amar House Builders CS No. 379/2013 Page 11 of 19 DR. SHARAD CHANDRA VS U. P. FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS.
to other flat purchasers of property bearing no. E544. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has further argued that defendant no.1 has compromised the matter with defendants no. 3 to 7 in a collusive manner and that the proper course of action for defendant no.1 was to enforce the mortgage against property of defendants no. 3 to 7. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has further argued that defendants no. 3 to 7 do not have valid title in their favour. Though it is correct that Mr. Suresh Sharma (defendant no.3) appearing as DW3 has testified under oath that all the flats, except one, have been purchased by defendants no. 3 to 7 on the basis of agreement to sell, it cannot be said that defendants no. 3 to 7 do not have a valid title in their favour as DW3 has further testified that registration of sale deeds has been ordered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi after the matter was settled between defendants no.3 to 7 and defendant no.1. Also, there is absolutely no proof that there was any collusion or connivance between defendant no.1 and defendants no.3 to 7 in arriving at compromise dated 06.07.2011 whereby defendants no. 3 to 7 had agreed to pay an amount of Rs.1.48 crores to defendant no.1 as the settlement amount regarding mortgage created with respect to property bearing no. E544. It must also be noted here that the said compromise was arrived at between defendant no.1 and defendants no. 3 to 7 before Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. There is nothing illegal about the said compromise. Thus, issue no. 3 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants.
CS No. 379/2013 Page 12 of 19DR. SHARAD CHANDRA VS U. P. FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS.
ISSUES NO.4 & 7Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD & Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable under Specific Relief Act? OPD 3 to 7
12. Both these issues being interrelated, are being taken up together here. Ld. Counsel for defendants has argued that since proceedings for recovery have already been initiated by defendant no.1 under Section 29 of U. P. State Financial Corporation Act (SFC Act), plaintiff ought to have joined the said proceedings and the present suit is not maintainable in view of Section 41 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. However, I do not find much merit in this argument. The said Section 29 of SFC Act nowhere bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. Recovery proceedings initiated by defendant no.1 under the provisions of SFC Act cannot be considered to be 'alternate equally efficacious remedy'. Thus, issues no.4 and 7 are decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO.5 Whether this Court lacks the territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present suit? OPD
13. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants. Ld. Counsel for defendants has argued that since the suit CS No. 379/2013 Page 13 of 19 DR. SHARAD CHANDRA VS U. P. FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS.
property was mortgaged with defendant no.1 at Lucknow and since notice Ex.PW1/D was also issued by defendant no.1 from Lucknow, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. However, I do not find any merit whatsoever in this argument. The suit property is situated with the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Notice Ex.PW1/D was issued to the plaintiff at his Delhi address by defendant no.1. Hence, cause of action for filing the present suit clearly arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, issue no.5 is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO.6 Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for nonservice of statutory notice on defendant no.1 under Section 80 CPC? OPD 3 to 7
14. The onus to prove this issue was upon defendants no. 3 to 7. Ld. Counsel for defendants no.3 to 7 has argued that statutory notice under Section 80 CPC was not served upon defendant no.1 and hence, the present suit is not maintainable. He has relied upon the cases of State of AP Vs M/s Pioneer Builders AIR 2007 SC 113 & Maria D'souza Fernandes Vs Luis D'souza IV (2013) CLT 415 (BOM). However, no such objection regarding nonservice of statutory notice has been taken by defendant no.1. Hence, defendant no.1 is deemed to have waived off the said objection regarding nonservice of statutory notice under CS No. 379/2013 Page 14 of 19 DR. SHARAD CHANDRA VS U. P. FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS.
Section 80 CPC. It is a well settled law that the requirement of statutory notice under Section 80 CPC can be waived off by the concerned Government or public officer. Since requirement of statutory notice is deemed to have been waived off by defendants no. 1 and 2 in the present case, the cases relied upon by Ld. Counsel for defendants no. 3 to 7 do not support his arguments. Hence, issue no.6 is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO.8 Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation? OPD 3 to 7
15. The onus to prove this issue was upon defendants no. 3 to 7. Ld. Counsel for defendants no.3 to 7 has argued that defendant no.1 had initiated the recovery proceedings in the year 199899 and that plaintiff was aware of the same as deposed to by him in his cross examination as PW1. Ld. Counsel for defendants no. 1 and 2 has relied upon the cases of Motilal Vs Prem Prakash AIR 2013 SC 2078 & Vinod Kumar Vs All India Blind Relief Society MANU/DE/2750/2013 in this regard. Though it is correct that PW1 has admitted in his cross examination that an official of defendant no.1 had come to meet him regarding notice of defendant no.1 issued in the year 1998, it is not clear as to when the said official had come to meet the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for defendants has argued that plaintiff has admitted in his cross examination CS No. 379/2013 Page 15 of 19 DR. SHARAD CHANDRA VS U. P. FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS.
that he had visited the office of defendant no.1 in the year 1999 and hence, knowledge must be presumed on behalf of the plaintiff. However, I do not find any merit in this argument. Even if this contention of the defendants is accepted and it is presumed that plaintiff had knowledge regarding initiation of proceedings for enforcing the mortgage in question by defendant no.1 way back in the year 1999, it cannot be denied that first official communication was sent to the plaintiff by defendant no.1 on 01/02.12.2011 by way of Ex.PW1/D. Plaintiff has filed the present suit on the basis of said notice Ex.PW1/D. Thus, the cause of action for filing the present suit clearly arose on 01.12.2011. The present suit having been filed on 24.08.2012, is thus, clearly within limitation. The cases relied upon by the defendants are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, issue no.8 is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO.9 Whether the suit of plaintiff has not been properly valued and proper Court fee has not been affixed? OPD 3 to 7
16. The onus to prove this issue was upon defendants no. 3 to 7. Ld. Counsel for defendants no. 3 to 7 has argued that the present suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction. However, I do not find much merit in this argument. This is a suit for injunction CS No. 379/2013 Page 16 of 19 DR. SHARAD CHANDRA VS U. P. FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS.
simplicitor. As per Section 7 (iv) of Court Fees Act, 1870, the amount of Court fee payable in a suit for injunction shall be according to the amount at which relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal. Further, as per Section 8 of Suits Valuation Act, 1887, the valuation of such a suit for injunction for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction shall be the same. In view of the valuation of the suit done by the plaintiff in para 22 of the plaint, I am of the view that the suit has been properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction and appropriate Court fee has been affixed by the plaintiff. Thus, issue no. 9 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants no. 3 to 7.
ISSUE NO.10 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Relief of permanent injunction against defendants no. 3 to 7 as prayed for in prayer clause (b) of the plaint? OPP
17. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiffs. As already observed by me in issue no.3, defendants no. 3 to 7 have validly settled the matter with defendant no.1. Plaintiff has absolutely no right to seek an injunction for restraining defendants no.3 to 7 from selling or alienating flats no.102, 103, 104, 201, 202, 301, 302 and 303 constructed on property bearing no. E544, G.KII, New Delhi. Thus, issue no. 10 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants no. 3 to 7.
CS No. 379/2013 Page 17 of 19DR. SHARAD CHANDRA VS U. P. FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS.
Relief:
18. As a consequence to my findings on the above mentioned issues, suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed and defendants no. 1 and 2, their officials, employees, agents, servants, nominees, associates etc. are restrained from interfering in the possession of plaintiff over the suit property i.e. flat no.101, E544, Greater Kailash, PartII, New Delhi situated on basement and ground floor on the front portion of the side road of the building E544, G. KII, New Delhi, consisting of three bedrooms, one drawing room, one kitchen, three bathrooms and common space i.e. staircase etc admeasuring around 1460 square feet with front lawn and side lane on the road side of the ground floor measuring 470 square feet and also from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property. Defendants no. 1 and 2, their officials, employees, agents, servants, nominees, associates etc. are also restrained from initiating or taking any coercive recovery action regarding the suit property for the purpose of enforcing the mortgage created on property bearing no.E544, G. KII, New Delhi, regarding loan given by defendant no.1 to M/s Shivlok Investment Holding Pvt. Ltd and M/s Regency Towers India Pvt. Ltd. Costs of the suit are also awarded to the plaintiff. Costs shall be borne by defendant no.1. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
CS No. 379/2013 Page 18 of 19DR. SHARAD CHANDRA VS U. P. FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS.
19. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 7th Day of April 2014 (Rajat Goyal) CJ04 (South)/Saket Courts New Delhi/07.04.2014 CS No. 379/2013 Page 19 of 19