9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arties entered into a settlement on two occasions but the appellants did not comply with the terms of settlement. The matter was listed before the Single Judge on 10.1.2018, when the same was adjourned at the request of the counsel for the appellants, it was made clear that no adjournment would be granted on the next date. Despite an express direction having been given, no steps were taken by the counsel of the appellants to ensure that the applications were placed on record. Sequence of events narrated hereinabove would show the conduct of the appellants as to how the appellants have succeeded in delaying the matter, which is evident from the facts that the appellants did not fulfil their financial liability; the cheques issued by the appellants to secure the loan were dishonoured; the appellants thereafter entered into an amicable settlement with the respondent and offered to pay Rs.3,22,02,660/- along with pendente lite interest and future interest at the rate of 24%, per annum; deed of compromise was executed and again post-dated cheque was handed over by the appellant to the respondent, which was also dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Since the settlement was not honou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted and a post-dated cheque was handed over to the respondent, which was dishonoured with the remark insufficient fund . This settlement was also not honoured by the appellants. As the settlement was not honoured, the respondent filed a suit for recovery under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure for Rs.4,38,00,617/-. Even before the High Court, parties entered into a settlement on 23.12.2016. This settlement was also not honoured by the appellants. When the matter came up for hearing before the Single Judge on 10.1.2018, counsel for the appellants sought an adjournment. The matter was adjourned to 11.1.2018 making it clear that no further adjournment would be granted on the next date. On 11.01.2018, the suit was decreed in the absence of any application seeking leave to defend. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that an application seeking leave to defend along with an application seeking condonation of delay was filed by the appellants but the same was not on record. It is contended that the learned Single Judge should have adjourned the matter to enable the appellants to trace the application seeking leave to defend, which was filed by him as far back as on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddress mentioned in the memo of appearance. List before the Joint Registrar on 03.11.2016, the date already fixed. The Joint Registrar will place the matter before the Court in the first week of December 2016. Parties to ensure that all pleadings are completed before the next date of hearing before the Court. Order 03.11.2016 IA No.12147/2016 (u/O XXXVII Rule 3(4) CPC by plaintiff) The defendants remain un-served. However, learned counsel for the defendants has entered appearance. At joint request the matter be sent to the Delhi High Court Mediation Conciliation Centre on 07.11.2016 at 02:00 pm Relist for reporting settlement if any on 15.11.2016. the short dates have been given in view of directions of the Hon ble Court dated 29.09.2016. Order 15.11.2016 IA No.12147/2016 (u/O XXXVII Rule 3(4) CPC by plaintiff) The mediation efforts have failed. Learned counsel for the defendant is directed to file leave to defend application within 10 days from today. Relist for proceedings on 28.11.2016. Order 28.11.2016 IA No.12147/2016 (u/O XXXVII Rule 3(4) CPC by plaintiff) Mediation report qua non-starter has been filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o explore the possibility of a settlement on 28.11.2016, 5.12.2016 and 19.12.2016. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that on 23.12.2016, the Court noticed that the parties had entered into a settlement and the matter was adjourned to 17.1.2017 and then adjourned for almost one year to 10.1.2018 to enable the appellant to honour the terms of settlement. It is further contended that on account of the fact that serious efforts were being made to resolve the matter amicably, the appellants did not file the application for leave to defend within ten days of service of summons for judgment. Counsel further points out that the application for leave to defend was filed on 5.12.2016 but on account of talks of settlement the appellants were under the impression that his application for leave to defend and the application seeking condonation of delay was on Court record. Counsel further submits that in the absence of the application seeking leave to defend not being placed before the Judge, serious prejudice would be caused to the rights of the appellants. It is next contended that suit could not have been decreed as this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isted before the Single Judge on 10.1.2018, when the same was adjourned at the request of the counsel for the appellants, it was made clear that no adjournment would be granted on the next date. Despite an express direction having been given, no steps were taken by the counsel of the appellants to ensure that the applications were placed on record. 13. Additionally, we find that the parties had entered into an amicable settlement during the pendency of the suit by a Compromise Deed dated 23.12.2016 on the following terms: 10. Terms of Settlement: 10.1 It is agreed that the defendants having admitted their liability jointly and severally in the present suit for entire amount as prayed but for the purpose of this settlement they have agreed to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,38,61,907/- (Rupees Two Crores Thirty Eight Lakhs Only) as full and final settlement amount against all claims of the plaintiff in this suit; whereas the plaintiff has also agreed and consented to accept aforesaid full and final settlement amount of Rs.2,38,61,907/- (Rupees Two Crores Thirty Eight Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Nine Hundred Seven Only) against his all claims which he raised in the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ques issued by the appellants to secure the loan were dishonoured; the appellants thereafter entered into an amicable settlement with the respondent and offered to pay Rs.3,22,02,660/- along with pendente lite interest and future interest at the rate of 24%, per annum; deed of compromise was executed and again post-dated cheque was handed over by the appellant to the respondent, which was also dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Since the settlement was not honoured by the appellants, the respondent was forced to file a suit under the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code. In the suit, the appellants again entered into a settlement with the respondent vide Compromise/Settlement deed dated 23.12.2016, and agreed to pay the sum of Rs.2,38,61,907/- by way of two post-dated cheques, which cheques were also dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. 17. We find no infirmity with the view taken by the Single Judge that in the absence of leave to defend objection, with regard to jurisdiction and the plaintiff being a money lender, could not have been considered. Additionally, we are of the view that once the appellant had entered into a settlement with the plaintiff and no plea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
