Pure Drinks Ltd. And Anr. vs Project Investment P. Ltd. And ...
1999 Latest Caselaw 386 Del

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. The copy of the order dated 26.4.1999 passed by the learned Division Bench has been brought to my notice. By the said order, the Hon'ble Judges of the Division Bench have desired this Court to dispose of LA. No. 6937/94. Therefore, I proceed to decide this application in Suit No. 2311 of 1993.

2. In I.A. No. 6937/94, defendant No. 6 has prayed that the orders passed by this Court on 9.5.1994 and 20.5.1994 be set aside or be kept in abeyance/stayed to the extent of directing the applicant/defendant No. 6 to put the amounts of the instruments in fixed deposits till the disposal of the suit.

3. By the order dated 9.5.1994, this Court directed that amount lying with the Standard and Chartered Bank be kept in fixed deposits for a period of 90 days. This order was further clarified by the subsequent order of 20.5.1994 in which the Court observed that the order dated 9.5.1994 is clarified only to the extent that pending the reply and the further orders, the Standard Chartered Bank is directed that whatever amount is available with it, out of that amount mentioned in the earlier orders dated 13.10.1993 and 26.10.1993 be held by it in fixed deposits.

4. It may be pertinent to mention that the application for review of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge was filed on 15.7.1994 under Section 151 CPC. Counsel for the plaintiffs submits that this application is clearly barred by limitation. Till date no application for condensation of delay in filing the review application has been filed. Therefore, this application deserves to be dismissed only on this short ground of limitation. Counsel for defendant No. 6 submitted that since the application is filed under Section 151 CPC and there is no specified statutory period of limitation and therefore, the application cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation.

5. It may be pertinent to mention that this application is pending for almost last five years and the order sheets indicate that no efforts were made to get this application disposed of. As a matter of fact, even when this Court passed the orders dated 8.4.1999 and 24.3.1999, no reference much less any request was made to this court to dispose of this application filed by defendant No.6.

6. Mr. Tikku, the learned counsel for defendant No.6 pointed out that there is one more application, I.A. No. 4786/84 which was also filed by defendant No.6, but inadvertently even that application was not pressed on earlier occasions by the counsel for defendant No.6. Perhaps, no request was made even to the learned Division Bench also because the order of the learned Division Bench is confined to IA 6937/94 only. It is requested by the counsel for defendant No.6 that IA 4786/94 may also be disposed of alongwith IA 6937/94. In this view of the matter, I also proceed to decide I.A. No.4784/96.

7. Admittedly, plaintiffs 1 & 2 had deposited Rs.2.57 crores inclusive of the bank draft amount on 9.10.1993 with defendant No. 6, the Standard and Chartered Bank. Mr. Tikku, learned counsel for defendant No. 6 submitted that out of the said amount, some amount has already been deposited with this Court and defendant No. 6 has no objection in depositing the balance draft amount with the Registrar of this Court provided defendant No. 6 is protected- from any future claim of beneficiary/beneficiaries.

8. Counsel for the parties submitted that the amount lying in the Bank be directed to be deposited with the Registrar of this Court. It was also submitted that the parties are not even making a prayer at this stage that the amount be disbursed to them.

9. Counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that they have already discharged some of their liabilities and settled the matters with some of these beneficiaries and they arc in the process of settling the matters with other beneficiaries. Mr. Chandhiok on instructions gave a clear undertaking on behalf of the plaintiffs, that in case any beneficiary/beneficiaries approach the parties to the suit or defendant No.6, in that event the plaintiffs undertake to indemnify those beneficiaries. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that he would provide details of the claims settled by the plaintiffs with the beneficiaries. Let that information be supplied within three weeks from today.

10. The orders of 9.5.1994 and 20.5.1994 and other orders passed in these proceedings are quite clear and categoric. These orders were passed in the presence of the counsel appearing for the Standard and Chartered Bank. Till date these orders have

not been varied or stayed. Though, of course, the aforesaid review applications have remained pending.

11. Mr. Chandhiok, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the application for review (IA 6937/94) is barred by limitation and no application for condensation of delay has been filed till date. Defendant No. 6 in absence of any stay or variation of this order was clearly under an obligation to deposit the aforesaid amount lying frozen with the bank in a fixed deposit for a period of 90 days as directed.

12. Mr. Tikku placed reliance on the following decisions: Pt. Sidh Nath Shukla v. Punjab National Bank of India Ltd , Tukaram Bapuji Nikam v. The Belgaum Bank Limited , Manik Ratan Guin and Anr. v. Prakash Chandra and Ors. , and Raghavendrasingh Bhadoria v. State Bank of Indore and Ors. (1993 Banking Journal 176).

In my considered view, these decisions are not relevant and render no support to the basic contention of defendant No.6 that the Bank is not liable to pay interest on these amounts. None of these cases deal with this aspect of the matter.

13. Mr. Chandhiok in support of his threshold objection that this review application is barred by limitation, has placed reliance on Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal; 1962 SC 527. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed in para 43 of the judgment and the relevant portion reads as under:

"Inherent jurisdiction of the court to make orders ex debito justitiae is undoubtedly affirmed by Section 151 of the Code, but that jurisdiction cannot be exercised so as to nullify the provisions of the Code. Where the Code deals expressly with a particular matter, the provision should normally be regarded as exhaustive."

14. He further submitted that there is specific provision in CPC for filing review under Order 47 Rule 1 and an application for review has to be filed within 30 days from the date of the order. No application can be permitted to be filed under Section 151 CPC to defeat the specific provisions of the limitation.

15. In other words, if the application under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is barred by limitation, then the applicant cannot be permitted to file the application under Section 151 CPC to overcome the provision of the Limitation Act. I find considerable force in this submission of Mr. Chandhiok and accordingly the application, i.e. IA 6937/94 deserved to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.

16. Even on merits, I find no substance in the application. In view of the aforesaid orders of the Court dated 9.5.94 and 20.5.94, the bank had to place the amount in the fixed deposit for the period of 90 days. The review application was filed but the order was never varied or stayed. By merely filing the application for review of the order the Court's order does not get automatically varied or stayed. The stand of

the Standard & Chartered Bank in declining to pay interest on the said amounts (which remained with the Bank for almost five years) is totally devoid of any merit.

17. Mr. Tikku, the learned counsel appearing for defendant No. 6 placed reliance on "Account Rules and Service Charges" of the Standard and Chartered Bank Deposit Rules. According to the relevant rule the deposits shall automatically be renewed on the due date for an identical period at the applicable rate of interest, unless instructions to the contrary are received from the depositor by the Bank. The relevant rules reads as under:

"The deposit will be automatically renewed on the due date for an identical period at the applicable rate of interest ruling on the date of maturity unless instructions to the contrary are received from the depositor by the Bank. The renewal will be in accordance with the provision of the relevant Reserve Bank of India scheme in force at the time of renewal."

18. No instruction to the contrary were sent by the depositors. There were specific directions of the Court to deposit the amount in the fixed deposit. Defendant No.6 had to abide by the orders in the absence of any stay order.

19. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances in my considered opinion review application (IA 6937/94) is devoid of any merit because I find no error apparent on the face of the record. The application is accordingly dismissed. In view of the decision in the IA. 6937/94, the IA 4786/94 is also dismissed.

20. It is not disputed that the amount of Rs.2.57 crores were deposited with the Bank on 9.10.1993.Some amount was repaid. Consequently defendant No.6,the Standard Chartered Bank is directed to deposit the remaining bank draft amount alongwith interest forthwith with the learned Registrar of this Court and the Registrar is directed to deposit the entire amount with a nationalised bank by creating a short term deposit of six months which may be renewed from time to time till contrary orders are received. It is reiterated that these amounts shall not be disbursed until the claims of the beneficiaries are fully settled.

21. A copy of this order be given Dasti to the learned counsel for the parties today. The suit be listed for directions on 21.5.1999.