Delhi High Court
Ms Shoes East Ltd vs Krishan Lal Monga & Co & Ors on 30 October, 2013
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 30.10.2013
+ CS(OS) 2146/2012
MS SHOES EAST LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr Pavan Sachdeva, CMD of the
plaintiff.
versus
KRISHAN LAL MONGA & CO & ORS ..... Defendants
Through: Ms Manisha Agrawal Narain & Mr
Neeraj Gupta, Advs. for D-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J (ORAL)
1.
Service has been effected by way of publication, as noted in the order
of the learned Joint Registrar dated 05.09.2013. There is no appearance on
behalf of defendant nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5. The said defendants are, accordingly,
proceeded ex-parte.
2. Objections have been filed on behalf of defendant no.3, wherein a
plea has been taken that defendant no. 3 was never a partner of Krishan Lal
Monga & Co., the partnership firm, with which the plaintiff dealt with.
2.1 It is further averred that the relationship between defendant no. 3 and
Krishan Lal Monga & Co. was on a principal-to-principal basis, and that, for
some time defendant no. 3 acted as a sub-broker of Krishan Lal Monga &
Co.
2.2 It is also the stand of defendant no. 3 that even though for some
period of time, i.e., till 1998, it shared office with Krishan Lal Monga & Co.,
that was not its address.
2.3 Defendant no. 3 also avers that it is working under the name and style
of Vogue Commercial Co. Ltd. and that defendant no. 3 had never had
dealings with the plaintiff in its capacity as an underwriter.
3. Mr Sachdeva says that since defendant no. 3 takes the aforesaid stand
on affidavit, he would drop the said defendant from the array of parties.
4. The objections are, accordingly, allowed. In view of the averments
made in the affidavit, defendant no. 3 is dropped from the array of parties.
5. Insofar as the other defendants are concerned, the case of the plaintiff
is as follows:-
6. The plaintiff has filed a suit under Sections 14 and 17 of the
Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short the 1940 Act). The award in respect of
which judgment and decree is sought is dated 12.5.2012. As per the award,
the plaintiff seeks a decree in the sum of Rs.9,50,274/- with future interest at
the rate of 18% p.a. till the date of payment.
7. Briefly, the award came to be passed in the background of the
following facts :-
7.1 The plaintiff had brought out a public issue in January-February,
1995, which was underwritten by 267 under writers. The defendant no.1
herein was one of the 267 under writers. According to the plaintiff, the
liability devolved on defendant no.1, as the issue remained under subscribed.
Since defendant no.1, who was an under writer failed to fulfil its obligation,
a request was made to Delhi Stock Exchange, on 02.05.1995, to appoint an
Arbitrator.
7.2 To be noted, that since, Delhi Stock Exchange did not oblige, the
plaintiff approached the court when this court appointed Ms. Justice Manju
Goel, a former Judge of this court, as an Arbitrator vide order dated
14.03.2007.
7.3 To be noted, defendants did not appear before the Arbitrator,
whereupon Mr.O.P. Faizi, Advocate was appointed to assist her in the matter
and to represent the case of the defendants amongst others. After complying
with the provisions of law, the learned arbitrator proceeded to pass the
award, as indicated above on 12.5.2012.
8. Accordingly, as prayed, the award is made a rule of the court. A
decree is passed in the sum of Rs.9,50,274/- alongwith interest at the rate of
18% p.a. till the date of realization of payment. The taxed costs will also be
paid to the plaintiff.
9. The captioned suit is accordingly disposed of.
10. A decree sheet be drawn up in the aforesaid terms. The suit and the
application be consigned to Record.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
OCTOBER 30, 2013
kk
