Delhi District Court
Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd vs Ram Kumar Gupta Huf on 1 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. SAURABH KULSHRESHTHA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03: WEST DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI.
CNR No.DLWT01-004853/2023
CA No. 191/2023
PS: Rajouri Garden
Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. V. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF
In the matter of:
1. Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.
Having Regd. Office at A-16,
Keshopur Industrial Area, Behind Vikaspuri,
H Block, New Delhi - 110018
(through its Director Shri Maninder Singh)
2. Shri Harjeet Singh Chandhok
Son of Late Shri Jagdev Singh
Director of Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.
R/o A-39, Ganesh Nagar, Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi - 110018.
3. Shri Maninder Singh
S/o S. Amrik Singh
4. Smt. Sarabjeet Kaur
W/o S. Maninder Singh
Both Director of Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.
R/o 22/25-A, Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi - 110018. ..... Appellants
Versus
Ram Kumar Gupta - HUF
Office at A-68, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi - 110027
(through its Karta Shri Ram Kumar Gupta) .... Respondent
CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 1 of 37
Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF
Date of Institution : 06.06.2023
Date of Reserving Judgment : 02.08.2025
Date of Pronouncement : 01.09.2025
Decision : Conviction maintained;
Sentence Modified
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ accused persons against the judgment and the order on sentence dated 06.05.2023 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act)-02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 2542/2016 whereby the appellants/ accused persons were convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of two years each. The appellants/ accused persons were further ordered to pay compensation to the complainant of an amount of Rs. 47,85,000/- (Rupees Forty Seventy Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand only) under section 357(3) Cr.P.C, jointly or severally and in default of payment of compensation, the appellants/ accused persons were directed further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
Version of the Respondent/ Complainant
2. The version of the respondent/ complainant is that the respondent/ complainant HUF is the owner of immovable property named "The Pharaohs" situated at plot bearing khasra no. 40/12 min(2-
4), 40/13 min (0-15), 40/18 min (2-1), 40/19 min (4-15), 40/22 min (4- CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 2 of 37 Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF
16), 40/23/1 min (2-1), 40/28 (0-1) total area 16 bighas and 13 bighas at village Tikri Kalan, New Delhi-110041, ad-measuring approx. 16788 sq. yards. The appellant/ accused no. 1 is a Private Ltd. company and the appellants/ accused nos. 2 to 4 were the directors of and the persons in charge of the day-to-day affairs of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the appellant/ accused no. 1 company, at the relevant point of time.
3. The respondent/ complainant HUF had entered into a registered lease agreement dated 02.05.2013 with the appellant/ accused no. 1 company whereby the aforesaid property was let out to the appellant/ accused no. 1 company. The lease deed was signed and executed by the appellant/ accused no. 2 on behalf of the appellant/ accused no. 1 company, being its director. The rent payable in respect of the demised property was initially Rs. 21,00,000/- plus service tax & cess as applicable from time to time, per month. The rent was supposed to be increased by 5.5% after the first six months and thereafter at the same rate after every year. Various post-dated cheques were handed over by the appellant/ accused no. 1 to the respondent/ complainant with respect to the monthly rent (after deduction of applicable TDS) and the service tax as applicable in respect of the demised premises.
4. That the present case pertains to cheque bearing no. 001048 dated 07.07.2015 for an amount of Rs. 21,03,618/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Vikas Puri Branch, New Delhi towards the rent for the month of CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 3 of 37 Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF July, 2015 and cheque no. 001099 dated 07.07.2015 for an amount of Rs. 2,88,897/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Vikas Puri Branch, New Delhi towards service tax issued on behalf of the appellant/ accused no. 1 company and signed by the appellant/ accused no. 2 in favour of the respondent/ complainant towards discharge of the aforesaid liability. The said cheques were however dishonoured on presentation with the remarks 'payment stopped by drawer' vide dishonour memos dated 08.07.2015. The respondent/ complainant issued legal demand notice dated 17.07.2015, however the amount due against the cheques was not paid by the appellants/ accused persons despite service of notice. Accordingly, the respondent/ complainant filed the present complaint under section 138 r/w section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
5. In order to prove his case, the respondent/ complainant HUF examined its Karta Sh. Ram Kumar Gupta as CW1 before the Ld. Trial Court and he deposed on the lines of the complaint. The respondent/ complainant placed reliance on the following documents: (i) The certificate of incorporation of the appellant/ accused no. 1 company which is marked as Mark A (ii) The Articles of association of the appellant/ accused no. 1 company, marked as Mark B (iii) The registered lease agreement dated 02.05.2013, exhibited as Ex. CW1/3 (iv) cheque for an amount of Rs.21,03,618/-, exhibited as Ex. CW1/4; (iv) cheque for an amount of Rs.2,88,897/-, exhibited as Ex. CW1/5 and invoice / Bill for rent as Ex.CW1/6 (v) the cheque dishonour memos, exhibited as Ex. CW1/7 and Ex. CW1/8; (vii) Legal notice exhibited as Ex. CW1/9 CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 4 of 37 Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF
(viii) postal receipts and tracking reports, exhibited as Ex. CW1/10 to Ex. CW1/12.
Version of the Appellants / Accused Persons
6. On the other hand, the version of the appellants/ accused persons is that they had taken the demised property on rent from the respondent/ complainant HUF in terms of the registered lease agreement dated 02.05.2013 and 64 cheques were given to the respondent/ complainant as advance payment towards rent, service tax and other expenses. The appellant / accused no. 2 Harjeet Singh Chandok admitted his signatures on the cheques in question. The factum of dishonour of the cheques in question on presentation was also not disputed.
7. The appellants/ accused persons, however, contended that when they took the possession of the demised premises, they found a number of deficiencies therein due to which they could not run their business (motel) from the said premises. Moreover, the respondent/ complainant did not complete the formalities for the issuance of license required from DPCC, hotel license, etc. in the prescribed period of 6 months, therefore, the appellants/ accused persons were not able to run their motel. Since the demised premises was not habitable, they handed over the locks and keys of the premises to the respondent/ complainant and when the respondent/ complainant did not acknowledge the same, the possession was handed over on execution of a written acknowledgement in presence of the Local Commissioner, under court CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 5 of 37 Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF orders, in a suit filed by them. They further contended that after execution of the lease agreement, a subsequent agreement was also entered into between the parties, and as per the said agreement the clause relating to the lock-in period was not binding on the appellants/ accused persons and they could exit the demised premises by giving one month's notice, however they further submitted that the said agreement is in possession of the respondent/ complainant only. They further contended that they had also given a security deposit of an amount of Rs. 1,26,00,000/- to the respondent/ complainant which has not been returned back. They admitted the receipt of the legal notice and contended that an appropriate reply was issued. The appellants/ accused persons therefore contended that they do not owe any liability towards the respondent/ complainant HUF qua the cheques in question.
8. In order to establish their defence, the appellants/ accused persons examined Sh. Baldev Negi as DW 1. DW1 is a witness to the lease agreement dated 02.05.2013. DW1 deposed on the lines of the defence of the accused persons. He further deposed that Sarabjeet Kaur was never part of any transaction qua the issuance of cheque or lease agreement and Form DIR is Ex. DW1/A. The appellants/ accused persons further examined Sh. Manish Yadav, Judicial Assistant, Record Room, Tis Hazari as DW 2. DW2 produced the record of the Civil Suit filed by the appellant/ accused no. 1 company against the respondent/ complainant which was decided by the Ld. Civil Judge, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Certified copy of the record is Ex.CW1/D-1. They further CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 6 of 37 Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF examined Sh. Yogesh Singh, Ahlmad of the Trial Court as DW 3. DW3 produced the record of the complaint case titled as Ram Kumar Gupta v. M/s T.G Leisure Resort Pvt. Limited. Certified copy of the same is Ex. DW3/1. The appellants/ accused persons further examined Sh. Harjeet Singh Chandok, accused no. 2 and director of the accused company, as DW 4. DW4 deposed on the lines of the defence raised by the appellants / accused persons.
Judgment of the Ld. Trial Court
9. The Ld. Trial Court rejected the contentions of the appellants/ accused persons and held that the cheques in question had been issued towards discharge of a legally recoverable debt/ liability with respect to rent and service tax qua the demised premises in terms of the lease agreement dated 02.05.2013. The Ld. Trial Court further held that since there was a lock-in period of 30 months starting from 01.10.2013 till 31.03.2016 under the lease agreement the appellants/ accused persons were liable to make the payment of rent and service tax. The Ld. Trial Court further held that the appellants/ accused persons had also failed to establish that the premises was not in habitable or usable condition.
10. Accordingly, the Ld. Trial Court, vide judgment dated 06.05.2023 convicted the appellants / accused persons for the offence punishable under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and vide order on sentence dated 06.05.2023 the CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 7 of 37 Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF appellants / accused persons were sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of two years each. The appellants/ accused persons were further ordered to pay compensation to the respondent/ complainant of an amount of Rs. 47,85,000/- (Rupees Forty Seventy Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand only) under section 357(3) Cr.P.C jointly and severally. In default of payment of compensation, the appellants/ accused persons were sentenced to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
11. The aforesaid judgment and order on sentence have been assailed by the appellants/ accused persons in the present appeal.
12. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellants/ accused persons as well as the Ld. Counsel for the respondent/ complainant and have given due consideration to their rival contentions and perused the record.
Contentions of the Appellants/ Accused Persons
13. Ld. Counsel for the appellants/ accused persons has contended that the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellants/ accused persons found a number of deficiencies and defects in the demised premises due to which they could not run their business from the said premises. The respondent/ complainant was also informed regarding such deficiencies in the motel in respect of basement regarding STP, DG Set and panelling, no proper arrangement of fire CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 8 of 37 Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF extinguishing, no NOC from Fire Department, non-functioning of lift, no NOC from MCD regarding functioning of lift, HVAC, problems of boundary walls, drive-way plants and already damaged grills and the fact that the appellants could not use the demised property effectively because of the said deficiencies and they suffered heavy losses in their business for that reason. Moreover, the respondent/ complainant did not complete the formalities for the issuance of license required from DPCC, hotel license, etc. in the prescribed period of 6 months, therefore, the appellants/ accused persons were not able to work. Further just before taking possession of the demised premises, the DMRC had dug the land in front of the main gate of the said premises which rendered the premises unfit for use as a motel.
14. Ld. Counsel for the appellants/ accused persons has further contended that for this reason the appellants/ accused persons wanted to vacate the premises in question, however, the respondent/ complainant failed to take over the possession of the premises and accordingly, a civil suit was filed before the court of Ld. Civil Judge by the appellants/ accused persons and that on 18.10.2015 a written document with respect to handing over of the possession of the demised premises was prepared in the presence of the Local Commissioner. Otherwise, the business of the appellants/ accused persons from the said premises had been wound up on 30.06.2015 itself and they had already handed over the locks and keys of the premises to the respondent/ complainant on 30.06.2015.
CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 9 of 37Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF
15. Ld. Counsel for the appellants/ accused persons has further contended that the premises was earlier let out to one M/s T.G. Leisure & Resorts Pvt. Ltd vide Lease Agreement dated 09.06.2011 and there was a lock-in period of three years which was supposed to expire on 31.10.2014 and without disclosing this fact the premises in question was again leased out to the appellants w.e.f. 01.10.2013 and the possession of the same was handed over to the appellants/ accused persons on 02.05.2013. Ld. Counsel for the appellants/ accused persons has further contended that the appellants/ accused persons had failed to pay the rent for two consecutive months, and therefore, the Lease was deemed to have been terminated by virtue of clause 10 of the Lease deed dated 02.05.2013. He has therefore argued that the appellants/ accused persons were not liable to pay the rent till 31.03.2016 and the cheques cannot be said to have been issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt/ liability and the post-dated cheques (PDCs) given by the appellants/ accused persons as security cheques have been misused by the respondent/ complainant.
16. Ld. Counsel for the appellants/ accused persons has further contended that the security deposit of Rs. 1,26,00,000/- paid by the them to the respondent/ complainant has also not been refunded and this amount ought to have been adjusted towards the rent for which the cheques in question were issued. Ld. Counsel for the appellants/ accused persons has further contended that respondent/ complainant had wrongly impleaded Ms. Sarbjeet Kaur as an accused in the present case in view of CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 10 of 37 Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF the fact that at the time of execution of the Lease Deed and issuance and handing over of the cheques in question, Ms. Sarbjeet Kaur was not a director in the appellant/ accused no. 1 company.
17. Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel for the appellants/ accused persons has prayed that the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 06.05.2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court be set aside and the appellants/ accused persons be acquitted.
Contentions of the Respondent / Complainant
18. Per Contra, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent/ complainant has refuted the contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants/ accused persons and has stated that the judgment passed by the Ld. Trial Court is a well-reasoned one and all the contentions of the appellants/ accused persons have been considered and rightly rejected.
19. Ld. Counsel for the respondent/ complainant has further contended that at the time of execution of the lease, the lessee had acknowledged that it has carefully inspected the premises and satisfied itself and had not found any defects in the building at the time of taking possession and as such there were no defects in the demised premises. He has further contended that the appellants/ accused persons had never raised any issue with respect to the alleged deficiencies and in fact they had been running their business from the demised premises and had also taken all the requisite licenses. Ld. Counsel for the respondent/ CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 11 of 37 Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF complainant has further contended that in view of the clause specifying a lock-in period in the Lease Deed the appellants/ accused persons were bound to make the payment of rent from 01.10.2013 to 31.03.2016 despite the fact that the possession had been delivered back prematurely. He has further contended that the PDCs were given towards the discharge of a legally recoverable debt/ liability i.e. payment of rent and service tax in terms of the Lease Deed and the respondent/ complainant accordingly presented the same for encashment and the said cheques have been dishonoured.
20. Ld. Counsel for the respondent/ complainant has further contended that the appellants/ accused persons had caused damage to the demised premises which they were liable to compensate and they were also liable to make the payment of interest and damages towards delayed payment of rent and the security deposit of the appellants/ accused persons has been adjusted against the said dues. He has further argued that Ms. Sarbjeet Kaur was a Director of and was responsible for the day-to-day affairs and the conduct of the business of the in the appellant/ accused no. 1 company, when the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was actually committed and accordingly, she is also liable for the said offence. Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent/ complainant has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 12 of 37Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF Appreciation, Analysis and Findings
21. The undisputed facts as borne out from the record are as follows: The respondent/complainant HUF leased the subject premises to the appellant/accused no. 1 company for the period commencing from 01.10.2013 and ending on 31.03.2022. A registered Lease Deed dated 02.05.2013 was duly executed between the respondent/complainant HUF and the appellant/accused no. 1 company in respect of the said premises, and the same is exhibited as Ex. CW1/3. In terms of the Lease Deed, the initial monthly rent payable in respect of the demised premises was fixed at Rs. 21,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-One Lakhs only), in addition to service tax and cess as applicable from time to time. The rent was contractually agreed to be increased 5.5% after the initial six-months period, and thereafter, at the same rate on an annual basis. The appellant/ accused no. 1 company provided post-dated cheques to the respondent/complainant towards the monthly rent (after deduction of tax deducted at source, as applicable) and the corresponding service tax for a period of 60 months. Possession of the demised premises was handed over to the appellant/ accused no. 1 company on 02.05.2013. The period from 02.05.2013 to 30.09.2013 was designated as the fit-out period, during which no rent was payable, and the obligation to pay rent was to commence from 01.10.2013.
22. It is also an undisputed fact that the cheques in question were issued in advance as post-dated instruments by the appellant/ CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 13 of 37 Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF accused no. 1 company in discharge of its liability towards the monthly rent and applicable service tax. The said cheques were signed by appellant/ accused no. 2 in his capacity as a director of the aforesaid company. It is further not in dispute that the aforementioned cheques were dishonoured upon presentation, and the statutory legal notice, was duly served upon the appellants/ accused persons in relation thereto.
23. The broad defence raised by the appellants/ accused persons is that because of various reasons they were not liable to pay the monthly rent to the respondent/ complainant and therefore the dishonour of the cheques in question, which had been issued in advances as post-dated cheques, towards rent and service tax, does not attract liability under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellants/ accused persons have contended that on the date of presentation of the cheques for encashment there did not exist any subsisting legally enforceable debt or liability. The question to be answered is as to whether the appellants/ accused persons have been successful in establishing this defence.
24. In so far as the legal position in this respect is concerned, the same has been encapsulated in the judgment titled as Baslingappa v. Mudibasappa reported as (2019) 5 SCC 418 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:
".......23. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in above cases on Sections 118(a) and CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 14 of 37 Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF 139, we now summarise the principles enumerated by this Court in following manner:
(i) Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.
(ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.
(iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.
(iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence, Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.
(v) It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence......."
CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 15 of 37Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF
25. Further in the judgment titled as Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets reported as (2009) 2 SCC 513 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:
"......The accused in a trial under Section 138 of the Act has two options. He can either show that consideration and debt did not exist or that under the particular circumstances of the case the non- existence of consideration and debt is so probable that a prudent man ought to suppose that no consideration and debt existed. To rebut the statutory presumptions an accused is not expected to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt as is expected of the complainant in a criminal trial. The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration and that there was no debt or liability to be discharged by him. However, the court need not insist in every case that the accused should disprove the non-existence of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. At the same time, it is clear that bare denial of the passing of the consideration and existence of debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of the accused. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the burden of proof shifted to the complainant. To disprove the presumptions, the accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their non-existence was so CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 16 of 37 Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist. Apart from adducing direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration or that he had not incurred any debt or liability, the accused may also rely upon circumstantial evidence and if the circumstances so relied upon are compelling, the burden may likewise shift again on to the complainant. The accused may also rely upon presumptions of fact, for instance, those mentioned in Section 114 of the Evidence Act to rebut the presumptions arising under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act. The accused has also an option to prove the non-existence of consideration and debt or liability either by letting in evidence or in some clear and exceptional cases, from the case set out by the complainant, that is, the averments in the complaint, the case set out in the statutory notice and evidence adduced by the complainant during the trial...."
26. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the issuance of the cheques in advance as post-dated instruments on behalf of the appellant/ accused no. 1 company towards payment of rent and service tax stands admitted. Therefore, the statutory presumption operates in favour of the respondent/ complainant to the effect that the cheques in question had been issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability and the onus to rebut the same lies upon the appellants/ accused persons, though the standard of proof is that of preponderance of probabilities.
CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 17 of 37Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF
27. Coming to the underlying basis for the denial of liability to pay the rent by the appellants/ accused persons, the primary ground put forth by them is that there were a number of deficiencies and defects in the demised premises and further there were various omissions/ lapses on the part of the respondent/ complainant, as a result of which, they were not able to run their business from the said premises.
28. However, the fallacy of this argument stands exposed right away as the Lease Deed dated 02.05.2013 itself categorically records that "the lessee has seen, inspected and measured the said premises, verified correctness of the area, documents, quality of work and got satisfied themselves thereof. Lessee also has not found any inherit defects in the building of any kind." In view of this clear unequivocal statement in the lease deed, acknowledging the fact that the demised premises was free from any defects or deficiencies, this contention of the appellants/ accused persons holds no water.
29. Secondly, during the fit-out period i.e. from 02.05.2013 till 30.09.2013, no grievance whatsoever was raised by the appellants/ accused persons that the premises is unsuitable for being used as a motel or there are any major defects/ deficiencies therein. DW 4 has also admitted that no written communication was sent by the appellant/ accused company to the respondent/ complainant to fix or rectify any part, parcel, fitting or machinery in the demised premises before the commencement of the lease w.e.f. 01.10.2013. DW1 has also clearly CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 18 of 37 Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF stated in his cross examination that the premises was put for commercial use from June, 2013. The appellants/ accused persons therefore started using the demised property for commercial purposes right away, which clearly negates the existence of any major defects or deficiencies therein.
30. Furthermore, the payment of rent commenced from 01.10.2013 and thereafter the rent was paid without any demur till January, 2015 which clearly indicates that the accused had no trouble in running the motel business from the premises in question. During this period also, again there is no written communication from the side of the appellants/ accused persons that there were any major defects or deficiencies in the building or any lapses on the part of the respondent/ complainant.
31. The appellants/ accused persons have contended that due to lapses and inaction on the part of the respondent/ complainant they could not take various licenses and permissions from the authorities. DW 4 has, however, admitted that the requisite licenses had been obtained later on and a copy of the MCD license is Ex. DW4/C-1 and a copy of the DPCC certificate is Ex. DW4/C-3. Coming to the terms and conditions of the lease, as per clause 12 of the Lease Deed Ex. CW1/3 it was the responsibility of the appellants/ accused persons to take necessary permissions/ NOCs/ licenses from the concerned authorities such as MCD, DPCC, etc., at their own cost. Clause 13 of the Lease Deed requires the Lessee to apply for the electricity and water connections and CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 19 of 37 Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF complete all formalities and bear all costs. Clause 18 of the Lease Deed further provides that any type of repair and maintenance of the leased premises is to be done by the Lessee at its own cost. DW 4 has further admitted that the responsibility to maintain the lift was of the lessee as per the agreement Ex. CW1/3. Thus, all these aspects were to be taken care of by the appellants/ accused persons and they cannot wriggle out of their responsibility by simply putting the blame upon the respondent/ complainant and that to without any evidence.
32. There is no cogent and viable material on record to establish that the demised premises was not suitable for running a motel or that there were any major defects of deficiencies therein which rendered the same unsuitable for running a motel. It is further seen that no evidence has been adduced by the appellants/ accused persons to establish that the premises was unsuitable for use as a motel on account of the metro line construction. At any rate the respondent/ complainant cannot be blamed for the same. The appellants/ accused persons also could not prove any written communication issued by them which was actually served upon the respondent/ complainant, at the earliest possible opportunity, explaining the lapses/ inaction, if any, on the part of the respondent/ complainant and calling upon them to rectify the same. In the absence of any such written communication, the appellants/ accused persons, now cannot be allowed to lay the entire blame on the respondent/ complainant.
CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 20 of 37Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF
33. Further the rights and liabilities of the parties in case of a lease are governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and section 108 (e) of the Transfer of Property Act enunciates certain eventualities when a lease may be avoided. However, this is not a case where the property was wholly destroyed or rendered substantially and permanently unfit for the purpose for which it was let out, because of fire, tempest, flood, violence of an army or a mob, or other irresistible force and hence the appellants/ accused persons cannot avoid the lease under section 108 (e) of the Transfer of Property Act even if they did not or were not able to use the property for purposes for which it is let to them. It is a case where neither the appellants have duly proved that the leased property was rendered substantially and permanently unfit for the purpose for which it was let nor they have been able to establish that they had actually avoided the lease on this ground or otherwise.
34. In this respect reference may be made to the judgment titled as Raja Dhruv Dev Chand vs Harmohinder Singh reported as AIR 1968 SC 1024, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"...If any material part of the property be wholly destroyed or rendered substantially and permanently unfit for the purpose for which it was let out, because of fire, tempest, flood, violence of an army or a mob, or other irresistible force, the lease may, at the option of the lessee, be avoided. This rule is incorporated in s. 108(e) of the Transfer of Property Act and applies to leases of land, to which CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 21 of 37 Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF the Transfer of Property Act applies, and the principle thereof to agricultural leases and to leases in areas where , the Transfer of Property Act is not extended. Where the property leased is not destroyed or substantially and permanently unfit, the lessee cannot avoid the lease because he does not or is unable to use the land for purposes for which it is let to him......"
35. Further in the judgment titled as Sangeeta Batra vs M/S VND Foods, (2015) 3 DLT (Cri) 422 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held:
"......27. Thus, if the leased premises is rendered substantially and permanently unfit for the purpose for which it was let, the lessee has the option to avoid the lease. Unless the lessee so avoids the lease, he cannot avoid his obligation contained in clause (l) of Section 108, which states that "the lessee is bound to pay or tender, at the proper time and place, the premium or rent to the lessor or his agent in this behalf...."
36. Next the Ld. Counsel for the appellants/ accused persons has placed reliance on another agreement purportedly executed between the parties and has contended that under the said agreement the appellants/ accused persons were exempted from the clause relating to the lock-in period and they were entitled to vacate the property after giving one month's notice. First of all, the said agreement has not been CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 22 of 37 Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF proved on record. Even no correspondence with respect to any such agreement has been proved. It has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants/ accused persons that the said agreement is in possession of the respondent/ complainant and no copy was provided to the appellants/ accused persons. This contention is firstly not believable and even if it were to be accepted as correct, it would be of no help to the appellants/ accused persons, as in the absence of the said agreement being proved, this Court cannot take cognizance of the terms and conditions thereof.
37. Be that as it may, any oral assertions in this respect or with respect to any other clause of the registered lease deed Ex. CW 1/3, which are at variance with the terms and conditions enshrined in the said lease deed, cannot be permitted in view of the provisions of section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. In this respect reference may be made to the judgment titled as Karan Madaan v. Nageshwar Pandey reported as (2014) 209 DLT 241 wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as under:
".....55. In Sanjay Gupta v. Cottage Industries Exposition Ltd., 2008 (102) DRJ 304, I had the occasion to deal with sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act. The parties had entered into a registered lease deed. The plaintiff claimed that the lease was for residential purpose and that the defendant misused the leased premises for commercial purpose. The defendant claimed that the lease was for commercial purpose. This led to CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 23 of 37 Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF disputes between the parties. The defendant stopped payment of rent on the ground that the plaintiff had obstructed the use of the leased premises for commercial and office purpose. To determine the purpose of letting, the relevant clauses of the lease were examined. Section 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act were pressed into service to deny the aforesaid defence set up by the defendant. The relevant extract from the said decision reads as follows:
― 20. The defence set up by the defendant that the plaintiff had agreed to get the user of the premises changed to commercial is in the teeth of Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act since the defendant is seeking to contradict, vary, add to the terms of the registered lease deed. The Bombay High Court in Dinkarrai Lalit Kumar & Ors. v. Sukhdayal Rambilas & Ors. AIR 1947 Bombay 293 held that the terms of a contract reduced to writing cannot be ascertained by allowing parole evidence as to what transpired antecedent to the contract or what the parties did subsequent to the contract. Once the contract between the parties is reduced to writing, the court can only look at the writing alone in order to construe what the terms of the contract were‖.
21. ...
22. In S. Saktivel (dead) by LRs vs. M. Venugopal Pillai & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 104 the Supreme Court held that where under the law a contract or disposition is required by law to be in writing, its terms cannot be modified, altered or substituted by an oral contract, or disposition. Under Section 92(4) of the Evidence Act no parol evidence is CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 24 of 37 Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF admissible to substantiate such oral contract or disposition. Where a document for its validity or effectiveness is required by law to be given in writing, no modification or alteration or substitution of such written document is permissible by parol evidence and it is only by another written document that the terms of the earlier document can be altered, rescinded or substituted. The Supreme Court also held that parol evidence cannot be permitted to substantiate the subsequent oral agreement where the original agreement is contained in a registered document. This is not permitted by Section 92(4) of the Evidence Act. The terms of a registered document can be altered, rescinded or varied only by subsequent registered document and not otherwise. If the oral arrangement is allowed to be substantiated by parol evidence it would mean re-writing of the registered document which is not permissible......".
38. The irresistible conclusion is that the Lease deed Ex. CW1/3 being a registered document, anything which is contrary to the terms and conditions thereof, cannot be considered, in the absence of adequate proof of any further registered document modifying the terms and conditions of the said lease.
39. Ld. Counsel for the appellants/accused persons has further submitted that they had vacated the demised premises on 30.06.2015, prior to the expiry of the lease term, on the ground that the premises were not suitable or fit for use. It is further contended that the act of handing over possession was formally recorded on 18.10.2015 in the CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 25 of 37 Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF presence of the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court. Accordingly, it is argued that the appellants/accused cannot be held liable for payment of rent beyond 30.06.2015.
40. Firstly, the appellants/ accused persons have failed to establish that there was any major defect of deficiency in the demised premises which rendered the premises unsuitable for use or there was any major lapse on the part of the respondent/ complainant which otherwise prevented the appellants/ accused persons from as such using the demised premises. Hence, the premature vacation of the demised premises by the appellants/ accused persons is not attributable to any fault or lapse on the part of the respondent/ complainant.
41. Most importantly clause (4) of the lease deed Ex. CW 1/3, stipulates in clear unequivocal terms that "There shall be a lock-in period of 2½ years from the 01 October 2013 till 31 March 2016. If the lessee vacates the premises before the expiry of the lock-in period and hands over the possession of the leased premises, they shall be liable to pay the rent/lease amount for the remaining lock-in period of 2½ years". Even DW4 has admitted in his cross examination that they are liable to pay the rent for the lock-in period mentioned in the agreement Ex. CW1/3 even if they vacate the premises before the lock-in period. Hence, despite premature vacation of the demised premises by the appellants/ accused persons, they are still liable to pay rent for the lock-in period commencing from 01.10.2013 till 31.03.2016. If the appellants/ accused CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 26 of 37 Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF persons intended to avoid the lease for any reason they should have instituted appropriate legal proceedings for the same, however, they miserably failed to do so.
42. Ld. Counsel for the appellants/ accused persons has further contended that the demised premises was also let out to one M/s T.G. Leisure & Resorts Pvt. Ltd vide Lease Agreement dated 09.06.2011 (Ex. CW 1/XY) and under the said agreement there was a lock-in period of three years which was supposed to expire on 31.10.2014 and without disclosing this fact the premises in question was again leased out to the appellants w.e.f. 01.10.2013 and the possession was handed over to the appellants on 02.05.2013. However, it is an undisputed position that when the appellant/ accused no. 1 company had entered into possession of the demised premises M/s T.G Leisure Resort Pvt. Limited had already vacated the same. The transaction, agreement and dispute between the respondent/ complainant and M/s T.G Leisure Resort Pvt. Limited are bilateral issues between both of them and the same are not relevant for deciding the dispute in the present case nor the same can, in any manner, mitigate the liability of the accused. Furthermore, the judgment in the said case between the respondent/ complainant and M/s T.G Leisure Resort Pvt. Limited is not at all relevant for deciding the present case in view of the provisions of sections 40 to 43 of the Indian Evidence Act. Hence this plea also does not help the appellants.
CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 27 of 37Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF
43. Ld. Counsel for the appellants/ accused persons has further contended that the appellants/ accused persons had failed to pay the rent for two consecutive months, and therefore, the lease was deemed to have been terminated by virtue of clause 10 of the Lease deed dated 02.05.2013. Firstly, this clause only gives an option to the respondent/ complainant to treat the lease as determined on the occurrence of this specified event of default on the part of the appellants/ accused persons and recover the possession of the demised premises prematurely. Nevertheless, section 112 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that forfeiture under section 111, clause (g) is waived by acceptance of rent which has become due since the forfeiture, or by distress for such rent, or by any other act on the part of the lessor showing an intention to treat the lease as subsisting. At any rate this default does not enable the appellants/ accused persons to avoid the mandatory payment of rent during the lock-in period.
44. The cheques in question pertain to the rent and service tax for a portion of the lock-in period only, which were clearly payable by the appellant/ accused no.1 company. In the judgment titled as Sunil Todi v. State of Gujarat, (2022) 16 SCC 762 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the purpose of the provision (Section 138 N.I. Act) would become otiose if the provision is interpreted to exclude cases where debt is incurred after the drawing of the cheque but before its encashment. Reference may also be made to the judgment titled as Sangeeta Batra vs M/S VND Foods, (2015) 3 DLT (Cri) 422 in this respect. The debt/ CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 28 of 37 Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF liability existed at time when the cheques were presented for encashment as the rent had fallen due in advance at the beginning of the calendar month for which the cheques had been issued. The said cheques were dishonoured on presentation and the appellants/ accused persons failed to make the payment of the amount due against the cheques despite service of the statutory legal notice. Accordingly, the ingredients of the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are made out and the appellant/ accused no. 1 company is clearly liable to be convicted and was rightly convicted for the said offence.
45. Coming to the liability of the directors of the appellant/ accused no. 1 company, section 141(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides that every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. It is seen that the respondent/ complainant had made specific averments as are required under the law in the complaint so as to make the accused directors vicariously liable. However, the appellants/ accused persons have contended that the appellant/ accused no. 4 Ms. Sarbjeet Kaur was not in charge of and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company.
46. It is seen that as per Form 32 (Ex. DW 1/A) available on record the appellant/ accused no. 2 was the promoter director of the CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 29 of 37 Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF appellant/ accused no. 1 company and he is also the signatory of the cheques. The appellant/ accused no. 3 was also the promoter director of the accused no. 1 company and in fact the response to the notice under section 251 Cr.P.C. and the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant/ accused no. 1 company have been recorded through him only. Further as per Form 32 available on record the appellant/ accused no. 4 Ms. Sarbjeet Kaur was also a director of the appellant/ accused no. 1 company under the professional category.
47. It is seen that the respondent/ complainant had categorically alleged in the complaint as well as in his evidence that the appellant/ accused nos. 2 to 4 were the persons in-charge of the day-to-day affairs of and responsible for appellant/ accused no. 1 company at all relevant times. As against this, the appellant/ accused no. 4, neither in the notice under section 251 Cr.P.C. nor in her statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. has taken a defence that she was not in charge of and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company. No evidence was led by her or by the other appellants/ accused persons on this count. The appellant/ accused nos. 4 has not stepped into the witness box to prove this contention. The appellants/ accused persons, despite opportunity, failed to lead any cogent and viable evidence in this respect and therefore adverse inference ought to be drawn against them on this count.
CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 30 of 37Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF
48. Even before this Court the appellants/ accused persons have primarily contended that the appellant/ accused no. 4 Ms. Sarbjeet Kaur was not a director of the accused company when the cheques in question were initially drawn/ issued and handed over to the respondent/ complainant. As per record Ms. Sarbjeet Kaur became a director in the accused no. 1 company on 29.05.2014. Thus, she was a director of the accused no. 1 company when the liability for payment of rent/ service tax actually arose, when the cheques in question were presented for encashment and dishonoured and when the payment due against the cheques was not made despite service of the statutory legal notice. As per section 141(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act the relevant time is the time when the offence is committed. Thus, the appellant/ accused no. 4 was a director in the appellant/ accused company when the offence was actually committed. Accordingly, the mere fact that she was not a director in the appellant/ accused company when the cheques were initially drawn, does not absolve her from liability.
49. The result is that the appellants/ accused nos. 2 to 4 were in charge of, and were responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, at the time when the offence was committed. Accordingly, the appellants/ accused nos. 2 to 4 are also liable to be convicted for the offence under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 31 of 37Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF
50. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment dated 06.05.2023 convicting the appellants/ accused persons for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. There is no merit in the present appeal in so far as challenge to the impugned judgment is concerned. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 06.05.2023 is upheld.
Order on Sentence
51. In so far as the impugned order on sentence dated 06.05.2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court is concerned, I am of the opinion that the same requires slight modification.
52. It may be noted that in the judgment titled as Meters and Instruments Private Limited v. Kanchan Mehta reported as (2018) 1 SCC 560 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is essentially a civil wrong and the object of the provision is primarily compensatory, with the punitive element being incorporated mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element. At the same time, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the object of incorporating this provision was to encourage the usage of cheques and enhance the credibility of such instruments so that normal business transactions and settlement of liabilities could be ensured. Therefore, a balance needs to struck by the Court keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of every case.
CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 32 of 37Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF
53. On facts, the matter in hand is essentially a landlord-tenant dispute and the cheques were issued towards the rent required to be paid in respect of the demised premises. It is also true that disputes had arisen between the parties with respect to the lease in question, which escalated to such an extent that the possession of the demised premises was voluntarily surrendered by the appellants/ accused persons, prematurely, through the process of the Court. Subsequently a dispute also cropped up between the parties with respect to refund of security deposit and the same has not been resolved till date.
54. Considering these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case where the maximum punishment prescribed should be handed down to the appellants/ convicts. The facts warrant that a slightly lenient view can be taken in the case of appellants/ convicts nos. 2 and 3 with respect to their substantive sentence. Furthermore, the appellant/ accused no. 4 had joined the directorship of the appellant/ accused no. 1 company much after the lease agreement had been executed and the advance cheques towards rent/ service tax had been drawn/ issued and handed over to the respondent/ complainant. Moreover, the appellant/ accused no. 4 is a lady aged about 53 years. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that she deserves further leniency in so far as her substantive sentence in concerned.
55. Coming to the issue of compensation, the appellants/ convicts have contended that their refundable security deposit amount of CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 33 of 37 Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF Rs. 1,26,00,000/- under the lease agreement has not been paid back by the respondent/ complainant. On the other hand, the respondent/ complainant has contended that the said amount has been adjusted, in terms of the lease agreement, towards interest and damages for delayed payment of rent as well as towards damage caused to the premises by the appellants/ accused persons. Undoubtedly, the lease agreement entitles the respondent/ complainant to adopt that course and in fact that is the very purpose of having a provision for security deposit. The appellants/ convicts therefore ought to have initiated appropriate legal proceedings for recovery of the said security deposit amount and the contentious issues raised in this respect were required to be adjudicated in such civil/ arbitration proceedings only. Admittedly, the parties attempted to initiate civil/ arbitration proceedings, but failed to diligently pursue the same and there was no conclusive final determination from any forum. As on date no such proceedings are pending. The aforesaid issues raised by both the parties are beyond the scope and ambit of the present proceedings. Since the appellants/ convicts have slept over their rights in this respect it is not possible for this Court to come to their rescue at this stage. This Court is not in a position to return any conclusive finding on the disputed questions as to whether any damage had in fact been caused by the appellant/ accused company to the premises and what was the just compensation which was payable on that count, which could have been adjusted against the security deposit amount.
CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 34 of 37Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF
56. Be that as it may, the cheques in question, had been issued towards payment of rent and service tax in accordance with the lease agreement. The lease agreement is an admitted document. The appellant/ accused company is a business entity and it had voluntarily accepted the terms and conditions of the said lease agreement, the subject matter of which was a commercial property. It cannot be said that this is a case where the terms and conditions were foisted upon a helpless individual by a colossal business entity by abuse of its dominant position. Both the parties are therefore bound by the terms and conditions of the lease agreement. The issue with respect to delayed payment of rent has therefore to be decided in light of the terms and conditions embodied in the lease agreement. Now under the lease agreement delayed payment of rent attracts penal interest @ 2% per month on monthly compounding basis. Further, the amount due against the cheque relating to the service tax component would also attract simple interest @ 18% per annum in terms of the provisions of section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
57. It is also pertinent to note that almost about ten years have lapsed since the rent became overdue and the respondent/ complainant has been deprived of his rightful dues for all these years. Even if the actual amount due towards the respondent/ complainant is calculated by adjusting the security deposit amount on a pro rata basis and thereafter the interest on delayed payment of the balance rental amount is calculated @ 2% per month on monthly compounding basis and further simple interest on the service tax cheque amount is calculated @ 18% CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 35 of 37 Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF per annum, the gross amount payable, even by a rough estimate, would easily exceed the amount of compensation which has been awarded by the Ld. Trial Court. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the compensation amount which has been awarded by the Ld. Trial Court is just and proper and serves the ends of justice.
58. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order on sentence dated 06.05.2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court is accordingly modified and the appellants/ convicts nos. 2 and 3 namely Mr. Harjeet Singh Chandhok and Mr. Maninder Singh are sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of six months each while the appellant/ accused no. 4 namely Ms. Sarbjeet Kaur is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court for the offence punishable under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
59. The appellants/ convicts nos. 1 to 4, are however, directed to pay compensation under section 357(3) Cr.P.C, in terms of the order of the Ld. Trial Court, of an amount of Rs. 47,85,000/- (Rupees Forty Seventy Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand only), jointly and severally, to the respondent/ complainant and in default of payment of compensation the appellants/ convicts nos. 2 to 4 are sentenced to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each. The compensation amount be paid within a period of 30 days. It is needless to state that the amount already deposited by the appellants/ convicts before the Ld. Trial Court shall stand adjusted against the total compensation amount payable.
CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 36 of 37Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF Conclusion
60. The net result is that the present appeal is dismissed qua the impugned judgment dated 06.05.2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, whereby the appellants/ convicts were convicted for the offence under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, however the impugned order on sentence dated 06.05.2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court stands modified as aforesaid. The appeal is disposed of in these terms.
61. A copy of this judgment be given free of cost to both the parties. TCR be sent back along with a copy of this judgment. Appeal file be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH KULSHRESHTHA
(Pronounced in the open court KULSHRESHTHA
Date: 2025.09.01
15:26:24 +0530
on 01.09.2025)
(Dr. Saurabh Kulshreshtha)
Additional Sessions Judge-03 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CA No. 191/2023 Page No. 37 of 37
Chanson Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Ram Kumar Gupta HUF