Delhi High Court
Hi Tech Medicalproducts Ltd vs Industrial Development Bank Of ... on 5 February, 2018
13
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 797/2016
HI TECH MEDICALPRODUCTS LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocate with
Mr. Harpreet Singh, Mr. Pravesh
Bhauguna and Mr. Gagan Kumar
Sehgal, Advocates.
versus
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
BANK OF INDIA & ANR ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Ajay Bahl, Advocate for
defendant No.1.
Mr. Mayank Bhargava, Advocate
with Ms. Shreya Mehra, Advocate
for defendant No.3.
% Date of Decision: 05th February, 2018
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
I.A. 1348/2018
1. Present application has been filed on behalf of the State Bank of
India-defendant No.3 under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC
for its own deletion from the array of parties and dismissal of the suit
against it.
2. In the present application, it has been averred that the loan account
of defendant No.2 stands settled under defendant No.3 Bank's OTS-2017
Scheme and as such the defendant No.3 has no surviving claim against
the defendant No.2.
3. Keeping in view the said averments, State Bank of India-
defendant No.3 is deleted from the array of parties.
4. Accordingly, present application stands disposed of.
CS(COMM) 797/2016
5. Present suit has been filed for declaration by the plaintiff praying
for the following reliefs:-
"(i) pass a decree of declaration against the defendants and
in favour of the plaintiff, declaring that the plaintiff has the
right to get executed deed of assignment in its favour and to
obtain release of the loan agreement, guarantee agreements
and the title deeds of the properties of the defendant No.2
charged with the defendant No.1, in its favour;
(ii) direct the defendant No.1 to execute a deed of
assignment in favour of the plaintiff and to release the loan
agreement, guarantee agreements and the title deeds in
respect of the properties of the defendant No.2, which are in
the possession of the defendant No.1;
(iii) alternatively, direct the defendant No.1 to refund the
amount of Rs.78,71,524/- (Rupees Seventy Eight Lakhs Seventy
One Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Four) with interest
on market rate to the plaintiff;
(iv) award costs of the Suit in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendant no.1;
(v) award damages amounting to Rs.2,00,00,000- (Rupees
Two Crore Only) in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant No.1; and
(vi) any other order or orders in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendant No.1 in the interest of justice."
6. On 19th July, 2016, the learned Predecessor of this Court by way
of a detailed order had recorded the statement of learned counsel for
defendant No.1 that it was left with no claim against defendant No.2 or
the defendant No.2's properties. In the said order, it had further been
recorded that the defendant No.1 had not released the charge over the
properties of the defendant No.2 in favour of plaintiff because defendant
No.1 was holding a joint charge along with SBI who had till date not
furnished a NOC.
7. In view of the order passed today recording the statement of
defendant No.3-SBI that it has no surviving claim against the defendant
No.2, this Court declares that the plaintiff is entitled to get the Deed of
Assignment executed in its favour and to obtain the Loan Agreement,
Guarantee Agreement and Title Deeds of defendant No.2 charged with
defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 is also directed to execute the Deed
of Assignment in favour of the plaintiff and to release the Loan
Agreement, Guarantee Agreement and Title Deeds in respect of
defendant No.2 which are in possession of defendant No.1 within a
period of four weeks. Accordingly, present suit stands decreed. Registry
is directed to prepare a decree sheet accordingly.
MANMOHAN, J
FEBRUARY 05, 2018
js
