Delhi High Court
Sudesh Kumar Kathuria And Anr. vs Lyca Finance Ltd. on 20 July, 1998
Equivalent citations: 75 (1998) DLT 403, 1998 (46) DRJ 855
Author: S Kapoor
Bench: S Kapoor
JUDGMENT
S.N. Kapoor, J.
1. Heard.
Learned Counsel for the appellant relies upon two judgments of the High Court. In Rai Bahadur Basakha Singh & Sons (Contractors) Pvt. Ltd. v.
Indian Drugs & Pharmaceutical Ltd., , no dispute was mentioned in the petition. Disputes mentioned in the notice which was sent, was sought to be relied upon. In that context, this Court held that the petition was not maintainable.
2. A similar question arose in Sh. Villayati Ram Mittal v. Union of India, AIR 1981 Delhi 313. In that case also, disputes were not mentioned in the petition. An Annexure to the petition was sought to be referred to point out the disputes. This Court again held that since the disputes were not mentioned in the petition, the petition under Section 20 was not maintainable.
3. But is it the case here? Certainly not. For, para 5 of the petition (Suit No. 170/ 95), as per copy shown by the learned Counsel for the appellant reads as under:
5. That in view of the defaults committed by the respondents, the hire-purchase agreement has been abrogated and the disputes have arisen between the parties under the said agreement in respect of the payment of the above amounts due from the respondents and also for the return of the vehicle by the respondents to the petitioner Company. The liability of the respondent No.2 is co-extensive with that of the respondent No. 1 as he stood guarantor for the due performance of all the terms and conditions of the said hire-purchase agreement dated 25.3.1993 and also for all the payments due and payable under the said agreement by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner Company.
Contents of that para, obviously, have not been admitted by the appellant.
4. The learned Trial Court has mentioned these facts in paras 10-11 of the judgment. In para 11, following relevant observations were made:
11. "...Under these circumstances, both the parties are not agreeable to the factum that the amount of value of the vehicle has been cleared by the respondents; and under such circumstances, a specific dispute has arisen regarding the payment of the value of the vehicle and the arguments of the learned Counsel for the respondent that there exists no specific dispute, cannot be accepted and is turned down/'
5. Though it would have been better if the learned Trial Court had have referred to para 5 in operative para of the order, yet since the judgment clearly mentions about the dispute relating to para 5 of the petition in paras 10 and 11, I do not think that it could make any material difference. Accordingly, it is not possible to accept the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that the petition does not disclose any dispute and consequently not maintainable.
Since no other point has been urged, there is no force in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed of accordingly.
