Calcutta High Court
Nicco Uco Financial Services Limited vs Dharnendra Industries Limited & Anr on 20 May, 2010
Author: Nadira Patherya
Bench: Patherya
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
EC No. 89 of 2009
CS NO.354 OF 1996
NICCO UCO FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED
Versus
DHARNENDRA INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ANR.
EC NO.104 OF 2009
ALLIANCE CREDIT & INVESTMENT LTD. @ NICCO UCO SERVICES CREDIT
LIMITED
Versus
DHARNENDRA INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ANR.
MR. J. CHOWDHURY, ADVOCATE APPEARS.
MR. S. GHOSAL, ADVOCATE APPEARS.
MR. A. KOTAK, ADVOCATE APPEARS.
MR. R.K.BASU AND MR. A. DHAR, ADVOCATES APPEAR.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA
Date : 20th May, 2010.
The Court : On 22.4.2010 the parties had submitted that it had reached a settlement at Rs.161 lacs. It now appears that the decree holder is not desirous to honour its commitment under the settlement. The reason given for this is some proceedings initiated by the anti fraud department, which may raise the question as to why a due of approximately Rs.11 crores was being settled at Rs.161 lacs. Therefore, the decree holder no longer wants to honour its commitment under the said settlement initiated by it but is willing to accept such 2 sums in the event the Court directs so. The Court can only be instrumental in encouraging a settlement the ultimate decision rests with the parties. In the instant case the decree holder evinced an interest to settle the matter at Rs.16 lacs and therefore the recording in the order dated 22.4.2010.
The judgment debtor has as per its commitment this day brought the demand drafts for the aggregate sum of Rs.163.50 lacs for payment to the decree holder. It is at this stage that the decree holder is not willing to settle the matter. Settlement cannot be forced on the parties nor can the Court be a party to such settlement, which may be questioned by the anti-fraud department. Accordingly, matter to appear in the list on 17.6.2010.
Pursuant to an advertisement various offers have been received by the Receiver. Such offers for the present be returned to the bidders. The names of the offerers are set out hereinbelow :
1] Alpesh Bharat Kumar Shah, 12/B, Krupa Sagar Society Santiram Paldi, Ahmedabad.
2] Om Rim Securities Ltd. [Prop. Jogesh Ch. Yadav], 9th floor, B.D. Patel House, Naranpura.
3] Mani Bhadra Sales Corporation, AF-3, Satyan Complex, ICC Road, Chamheda-382424.
4] Dipak Ratilal, Tanki Chowk, TekraUper at Limbadi, Dist.-Surrender Nagar.
5] Khem Chand Lal Chand Bacgani, A-356, Nayan Nagar, Saijpur, Ahmedabad-382345.3
It is desirous that in the event the sale is conducted in future, notices be issued to the said bidders besides effecting fresh advertisement in the local dailies of Viramgram, Ahmedabad. Proceedings by the anti fraud department was initiated against the decree holder in February 2009 and this execution application was filed in July 2009. Therefore, it was well within the knowledge of the decree holder that it could not settle the matter yet it proceeded to negotiate for settlement and such orders were passed in April 2010. It encouraged the judgment debtor to believe that it would settle the matter at Rs.161 lacs for which purpose the judgment debtors took steps to bring such sums in the hope of settlement, and when such sums was offered took the plea of proceedings initiated by the anti-fraud department, which proceedings was within its exclusive knowledge. Many of the purchasers from Gujarat also attended court to ascertain the outcome of the sale notice. From the aforesaid lack of bonafides on the part of the decree holder is evident and for causing harassment not only to the judgment debtors but to the purchasers, who have either appeared in person or through counsel, the decree holder is directed to pay costs assessed at 1000 GMs. by 7.6.2010 to each of the appearing parties.
All parties concerned to act on a photostat signed copy of this order on the usual undertakings.
[PATHERYA, J.] pkd.
Asstt. Registrar [C.R.]