The State Trading Corporation Of ... vs Sheela Abhay Lodha & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 6214 Del

$~28-29
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      CONT.CAS(C) 232/2015 & CM Appls. 22540/2015, 16049/2016,
       28166/2016
       THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD
                                                               ..... Petitioner
                         Through: Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG with Mr. Rohit Jain,
                         Mr. Gaurav Jain, Ms. Snidha Mehra and Mr. Shashank
                         Dewan, Advs.

                         versus

       SHEELA ABHAY LODHA & ORS                       ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.S.
                     Tewari, Adv.

                                    WITH

+      CONT.CAS(C) 233/2015 & CM Appls. 22539/2015, 16098/2016,
       28163/2016

       THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD
                                                               ..... Petitioner
                         Through: Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG with Mr. Rohit Jain,
                         Mr. Gaurav Jain, Ms. Snidha Mehra and Mr. Shashank
                         Dewan, Advs.

                         versus

       MS SHEELA ABHAY LODHA @ ORS.                   ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.S.
                     Tewari, Adv.
%                                 Date of Decision : 23rd September, 2016

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN




CONT. CAS(C) 232/2015                                            Page 1 of 4
                            JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)

1. On 12th October, 2015, this Court, after a detailed hearing, was inclined to order an independent investigation as the manner in which the petitioner and the respondents had entered into a settlement in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to say the least was „dubious‟.

2. This Court is prima facie of the view that the conduct of the petitioner and the respondents was „not above board‟. This was apparent from the settlement offer made by the respondents in their letter dated 22 nd July, 2014 which is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"This is with reference to the ongoing 138 cases. We here by irrevocably undertake to repay without any demur or protest to STC an amount of Rs.10 Crores to 15 Crores each and every continuing month and ensure that the total outstanding of STC is liquidated within a period of 6 months to 8 months.

The payment will start from 01st August, 2014."

3. Though in pursuance to the above letter, neither the outstanding amount was quantified/crystallised nor any penalty on default stipulated, yet the matter was settled. The petitioner and respondent no. 3 in their joint statement on 04th August, 2014 before the Metropolitan magistrate stated as under:-

"The present matter has been settled between us. In pursuance of the settlement the accused has filed letter dated 22.07.2014. The same is Ex.AW1/1. The authority letter of AR is Ex.AW1/2. The accused has agreed to

abide by the contents of the said letter. The AR of the complainant has agreed to release the goods as per the settlement."

4. On 12th October, 2015, learned senior counsel for the respondents had sought deferment of the order directing investigation as he had stated that the respondents would like to reconcile their accounts with the petitioner and would make payments of outstanding amount, if any.

5. In pursuance to the said order, the respondents have paid only Rs.10.50 crores to the petitioner.

6. In a recent additional affidavit filed by respondent No. 2, it has been averred that the respondents have made excess payment to the petitioner and have to recover a sum of Rs. 2,28,39,832.44/-.

7. On the other hand, learned ASG states that as on 30th April, 2016 after taking into account the aforesaid payments made by the respondents, Rs. 1,041,872,755/- is due and payable in pursuance to the settlement.

8. Keeping in view the divergent stands as well as the wide gap in the amounts due and payable between the parties and the „vague‟ settlement, this Court is of the view that is not possible to amicably resolve the matter.

9. Consequently, keeping in view the order dated 12th October, 2015, this Court directs the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to examine the entire transaction between the parties including the way the settlement offer was accepted by the petitioner-public sector undertaking.

10. Let a preliminary report be filed by the CBI before the next date of hearing. A copy of this order along with entire paper book shall be forwarded to the CBI by learned counsel for the petitioner within a period of one week. Both parties are directed to furnish whatever additional

documents and files the CBI asks for and to extend full cooperation to the CBI.

List on 18th January, 2017.

Order dasti.

MANMOHAN, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2016 NG