Delhi High Court
Shri Vinod Kumar Mahajan vs M/S. Selvedge & Ors. on 27 March, 2012
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* 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.
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
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
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
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
