Nafed vs Roshan Lal Lalit Mohan
2009 Latest Caselaw 4110 Del

             * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                              Date of Reserve: 23.9.2009
                                                        Date of Order: 12th October, 2009

EA No. 360/2009 in Ex. P. No. 124/2009
%                                                                          12.10.2009

        National Agricultural Co-operative Federation
        Of India Ltd. (NAFED)                  ... Decree Holder
                        Through: Mr. Saran Suri with Mr. Gunjan Kumar
                        & Mr. Amit Mahajan, Advocates

                Versus


        Roshan Lal Lalit Mohan                 ... Judgment Debtor
                        Through: Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
                        Mr. Raman Kapur, Advocate


JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

JUDGMENT

This application (Objections) has been moved by the Judgment

Debtor against the Execution Petition filed by the petitioner for execution of order

dated 30th March, 2006 passed in OMP No. 118/2006.

2. A Civil Suit being OMP No. 118/2006 was filed by the Judgment

Debtor as plaintiff wherein Judgment Debtor had sought an injunction against the

defendant (Decree Holder) restraining the Decree Holder from encashing the

cheques worth Rs.41 crore alleging that these cheques were issued by the

Judgment Debtor under duress and coercion. Nonetheless Judgment Debtor

had offered to pay a sum of Rs.7 crore by way of Demand Draft or Pay Order to

the Decree Holder in lieu of these two cheques. This Court after considering the

stand of parties at length directed Judgment Debtor to deposit/pay to the

respondent a sum of Rs.15 crore by way of Pay Order within four weeks from the

date of order and also gave liberty to the Decree Holder to sell the stock in

auction. The Court also observed that the Decree Holder will not get the two

cheques in question encashed, if the same had not already been deposited.

Judgment Debtor did not deposit this amount. This order was later on modified

by Division Bench in FAO No. 384/2006 and the Division Bench considering the

plea of the Judgment Debtor that he was not in a position to deposit the amount

of Rs.15 crore by way of Pay Order and considering the offer of Judgment Debtor

of selling his property No. 6, Alipur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi in public auction,

modified the order and appointed a Local Commissioner to take steps for selling

the property through public auction and fixed the reserve price of the property at

Rs.10 crore. The property however, could not be sold in public auction as the

highest offer made in public auction was only Rs.2.02 crore. The Decree Holder

again approached this Court and this Court vide order dated 27th April, 2007

restored the order dated 30th March, 2006 of the Single Bench.

3. Against the order dated 27th April, 2007 restoring the order dated

30th March, 2006, the Judgment Debtor filed an SLP before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court stayed the proceedings before the Single Judge on the

condition that the Judgment Debtor shall deposit a sum of Rs.4 crore with the

Registrar (Judicial) on or before 10th July, 2007. The Judgment Debtor did not

deposit this amount thus, the interim stay was vacated. Later on Judgment

Debtor's Counsel got the SLP dismissed on the ground that it had become

infructuous. The Decree Holder in the meantime had filed a contempt petition

before this Court for non-compliance of order dated 30th March, 2006. This

Contempt Petition was dismissed on the ground that the order was an executable

order and no contempt would lie.

4. The Decree Holder thereafter filed the present execution petition

and the Judgment Debtor has filed these objections stating that since Decree

Holder had already availed the remedy of contempt, the present execution was

not maintainable. The other ground against maintainability of the present

execution taken is that the order passed by this Court on 30th March, 2006 was a

conditional order and Decree Holder had not complied with the condition and the

cheques of Rs.41 crore had already been deposited by the Decree Holder thus,

the order passed by the Court was not executable.

5. It is apparent from the order dated 30th March, 2006 passed by this

Court that the order was based on representation of the Judgment Debtor. The

Judgment Debtor had made a representation to the Court that Judgment Debtor

was prepared to deposit Rs.7 crore immediately by way of pay order since

Decree Holder was not ready to accept only Rs.7 crore against the two cheques

issued by Judgment Debtor worth Rs.41 crore, the Court after considering the

arguments of both the sides directed Judgment Debtor to deposit Rs.15 crore in

the Court and gave directions to the Decree Holder not to deposit the cheques, if

the same had not already been deposited. However, the cheques had already

been deposited and it is also apparent that the Court was made aware about this

fact. Despite this, the Court had passed the order that Judgment Debtor would

deposit Rs.15 crore, on the representations of the Judgment Debtor and

readiness of Judgment Debtor to deposit Rs.7 crore immediately. The facts

would show that the Judgment Debtor had taken enormous amount for business

from the Decree Holder. The Judgment Debtor had not only been taking the

Decree holder for a ride but the entire proceedings so far show that the

Judgment Debtor had also taken the Courts for a ride. The Judgment Debtor first

made a representation before single bench that he was ready to deposit Rs.7

crore while he did not deposit a single paisa. Against the order of the Single

Judge, which was passed after deliberations with the Judgment Debtor's Counsel

and the Decree Holder's Counsel, the Judgment Debtor preferred an appeal

before the Division Bench and gave an impression as if the property of Judgment

Debtor at 6, Alipur Road was worth Rs.10 crore and got minimum reserved price

fixed at Rs.10 crore. The property did not attract a bidder of more than 2.02

crore ultimately, the order of the Division Bench got vacated and the earlier order

of the Single Bench was resorted. Judgment Debtor then approached the

Supreme Court where Supreme Court directed Judgment Debtor to deposit only

Rs.4 crore. The Judgment Debtor obtained this conditional stay from the

Supreme Court and sought time for depositing this Rs.4 crore. After obtaining

this conditional stay order Judgment Debtor did not deposit the amount and the

stay order was vacated and thereafter Judgment Debtor got the SLP dismissed.

It only seems that JD has been thriving on the money of the Decree Holder.

Judgment Debtor is prepared to spend money on litigation from one Court to

other Court but is not prepared to pay any amount to Decree Holder on whose

amount Judgment Debtor is thriving. The objection of JD that the order was not

executable is baseless objection. Even an interim order passed by the court

after considering the facts of the case and representation of the parties is an

executable order. Judgment Debtor had not taken this stand that this order was

not executable either before the Division Bench or before the Supreme Court

where SLP was filed. It was also not the stand of the Judgment Debtor either

before the Division Bench or before the Supreme Court that the order was merely

a conditional order and it exhausted itself because the cheques of Rs.41 crore

issued by the Judgment Debtor were presented by the Decree Holder even

before the Judgment Debtor filed suit the for injunction. This plea of the order

being conditional order and having exhausted itself has been raised by the

Judgment Debtor for the first time. However, the order shows that it was not a

conditional order rather the fact of depositing the cheque was brought to the

notice of the Court and despite this the Court had directed Judgment Debtor to

deposit Rs.15 crore.

6. I, therefore find no force in the objections raised by the Judgment

Debtor against execution of the order dated 30th March, 2006. The objection

application/petition is hereby dismissed.

Ex. P. No. 124/2009

The interim order passed by this Court on 25.5.2009 shall remain in

force. List this execution petition before the regular bench where arbitration

matters are being taken on 23rd October, 2009.

October 12, 2009                                SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn