Subhash Aggarwal & Ors vs Adigear International & Anr on 9 March, 2022

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Subhash Aggarwal & Ors vs Adigear International & Anr on 9 March, 2022

1. After some arguments, it is apparent that the respondents have failed to comply with the schedule of payment as recorded in the order dated Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:15.03.2022 01.10.2019 passed in OMP (COMM) 340 of 2019.

2. Mr Barua, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, referred to certain receipts in respect of the payments made by the respondents. He submits that the implication of the receipts are that the petitioners had adjusted the awarded amount and agreed to accept belated payments in variance to the schedule, as recorded the order dated 01.10.2019.

3. The said contention is unmerited. It is apparent from the receipts and orders passed from time to time that the petitioners have been repeatedly making the grievance that the respondents have not adhered to the schedule of payment as agreed. The receipts also indicate that the petitioners had accepted the payments in terms of the order dated 01.10.2019. The said order clearly indicates that if the payments are not made as per the schedule recorded therein, the petitioners would be entitled to the full awarded amount. It, obviously, follows that the payments received are in part discharge of the amounts due in terms of the order dated 01.10.2019.

4. Mr Barua also referred to a receipt dated 20.02.2022, which indicates that the petitioners had received a sum of ₹20,00,000, thus, making a total payment of ₹3,75,00,000/- and a balance amount of ₹25,00,000/- is pending. However, the said receipt also records that the receipt of the amount was as per agreed terms.

5. Mr Barua states that in terms of the said receipts, the petitioners had altered the terms of the settlement as recorded under the order dated 01.10.2019 and adjusted the amounts.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:15.03.2022

6. Prima facie, this Court finds the said contention unmerited. The receipts clearly indicate that the payments of amounts are in compliance with the order dated 01.10.2019. The terms of the said order are unambiguous. The reference to the balance amount of ₹25,00,000/- is clearly a reference to the balance amount remaining as per the settlement.

7. Mr Barua also referred to the orders passed by the Joint Registrar. All the orders indicate that the petitioners had made a grievance of the respondents not paying as per the agreed terms.

8. In particular, Mr Barua has referred to an order dated 01.02.2022. The said order records the contention of the learned counsel for the Decree Holder that the Judgment Debtor had agreed to pay a sum of ₹20,00,000/- by the end of January, 2022 but had again defaulted in payment of the said amount. According to Mr Barua, the same indicates that the schedule of payment, as recorded in the order dated 1.10.2019, was not binding. This contention is unmerited. The orders passed by this Court cannot be misconstrued in this manner and must be read in context.

9. It is clear from the documents and orders that the petitioners have been persistently pursuing the respondents for paying its dues and the respondents have failed and neglected to do so. Although part payments have been made from time to time, the same are not as per the schedule of payments as agreed and recorded in the order dated 01.10.2019. Whilst, Mr Barua relies on the orders passed by the Joint Registrar of this Court, the said orders also clearly indicate that the respondents have defaulted in making payments as agreed. It is not open for parties to rely on the orders Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:15.03.2022 selectively and the orders must be read in context. The inescapable conclusion is that the respondents have fully defaulted in making the payments as per the agreed terms recorded in the order dated 01.10.2019

10. At this stage, Mr Barua seeks time to make the payments along with interest on delayed payments.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks time to take instructions in this regard. He states that if the balance payment of ₹25,00,000/- along with interest calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on the delayed period is paid by the respondents on or before 14.03.2022, he may persuade his client to accept the same.

12. List on 15.03.2022.





                                                                             VIBHU BAKHRU, J
                          MARCH 9, 2022
                          RK                              Click here to check corrigendum, if any




Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:Dushyant Rawal
Signing Date:15.03.2022

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders