* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.128/2002
% 27th March, 2012
SHRI VINOD KUMAR MAHAJAN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. B.L. Chawla, Advocate.
VERSUS
M/S. SELVEDGE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 1.11.2001 disposing of two suits. The first suit was suit No.775/1994 filed by the present appellant for recovery of moneys which ware lying deposited in this Court pursuant to the orders passed in C.W.P. No.4554/1993 titled as M/s. Selvedge Vs. Union of India & Ors. The second suit was suit No.431/1998 filed against the appellant by M/s. Selvedge for declaration that M/s Selvedge was entitled to the amount of ` 2,80,000/- deposited in this Court. RFA No.128/2002 Page 1 of 5
2. The impugned judgment dismisses both the suits. The suit of the appellant being suit No.775/1994 was dismissed as the claim was held to be barred by time. The suit of M/s. Selvedge was dismissed on the ground that it was not registered under Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932. Admittedly, there is no appeal filed by M/s. Selvedge against the impugned judgment dated 1.11.2001 dismissing its suit bearing No.431/1998.
3. The facts of the case are that the appellant pleaded a case that he had business relationship with M/s. Selvedge on account of the fact that the appellant was a non-resident Indian residing in Germany and who used to purchase garments from M/s. Selvedge. There were said to be certain disputes with respect to the goods supplied, and the appellant claimed that M/s. Selvedge told the appellant that if the appellant came to India and gave a bank draft for a sum of ` 2,98,136/- then M/s. Selvedge will give in exchange cash for the amount for the bank draft because it was said that M/s. Selvedge had certain problems with its bankers. The case of the appellant was that M/s. Selvedge informed the aspect of cash transactions to the Enforcement Directorate acting under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and when parties met in a hotel in India on 23.11.1992, a raid was got conducted and a draft of ` 2,98,136/- and RFA No.128/2002 Page 2 of 5 currency of ` 2,80,000/- were seized by the Enforcement Directorate from the appellant. So far as the draft of ` 2,98,136/- is concerned, the same was handed over to M/s. Selvedge, however, the cash amount of ` 2,80,000/- was kept by the persons of the Enforcement Directorate.
4. M/s. Selvedge filed a writ petition being CWP No.4554/1993 in this Court claiming entitlement to the amount of ` 2,80,000/- and which writ petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by making the following observations in the operative portion of the judgment:-
"This is hardly any evidence for the petitioner to press a claim for reward. We have also not been shown under which provision of law the reward is being claimed. We find no merit in the petition and would dismiss the same. However, we direct that the amount of ` 2,80,000/- with interest accrued thereon shall be retained by the Registrar of this Court and returned to any of the parties who gets its or his claim adjudicated upon from a competent civil court. In the circumstances, we will leave the parties to bear their own costs."
5. The appellant filed the subject suit bearing No.775/1994 which was dismissed by the trial Court by the impugned judgment. The Registrar of this Court was sued as defendant No.4 in the suit filed by the appellant being suit No.775/1994.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that once the suit of M/s. Selvedge being suit No.431/1998 for declaration and entitlement to the moneys of ` 2,80,000/- lying in this Court was dismissed, automatically RFA No.128/2002 Page 3 of 5 the suit of the appellant was bound to be decreed inasmuch as the amount was lying in this Court as garnishee and admittedly the cash amount of ` 2,80,000/- which was seized by the Enforcement Directorate belonged to the appellant inasmuch as the amount was received by the appellant in exchange for the bank draft given. These facts were not disputed by M/s. Selvedge in the writ petition filed by it. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that once M/s. Selvedge's suit bearing No.431/98 was dismissed, the moneys lying with this Court ought to have been directed to be refunded to the owner of the said amount i.e. the appellant herein.
7. I agree with the arguments as urged on behalf of the appellant inasmuch as there is no dispute that the writ petition filed by M/s. Selvedge being C.W.P. No.4554/1993 was dismissed by observing that the entitlement to the amount lying in this Court will be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court. Adjudication of a Civil Court means that M/s. Selvedge had to succeed in its suit for claiming of the amount, and only whereafter the amount lying deposited in this Court could not have been paid over to the appellant herein and could be paid to M/s. Selvedge. Once the suit of M/s. Selvedge was dismissed, the appellant was not required to prove anything else inasmuch as admittedly this amount was the amount of the appellant and since neither this court nor the Enforcement Directorate RFA No.128/2002 Page 4 of 5 was claiming any rights in the said amount which was in fact the amount deposited in this Court by the Enforcement Directorate. The cash amount was the amount of the appellant as it was received by him in exchange of the bank draft of `2,98,136/-.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment to the extent that the same dismissed the suit bearing No.775/1994 is set aside. Defendant No.4 in the suit i.e. Registrar of this Court is directed to refund the amount of ` 2,80,000/- which is deposited in this Court alongwith accrued interest thereon, if any, to the appellant on the appellant filing an undertaking that no appeal has been filed by M/s Selvedge against the impugned judgment dated 1.11.2001. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared. Trial Court record be sent back.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J MARCH 27, 2012 Ne RFA No.128/2002 Page 5 of 5