M/S Narinjan Das Anand And Sons vs Senbo Engineering Ltd And Ors
2018 Latest Caselaw 5590 Del

$~2 (Original Side)
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     CS(OS) 1719/2011
      M/S NARINJAN DAS ANAND AND SONS            ..... Plaintiffs
                    Through: Mr. Manjit Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate
                    versus

      SENBO ENGINEERING LTD AND ORS               ..... Defendants
                   Through: Mr. Ashok Anand, Mr. Kundan Kumar
                   Lal and Mr. Nishant Bhamri, Advocates with AR
                   Pankaj Singh for D-1.
                   Mr. Alok Kr. Bhattacharya, previous Advocate for
                   the D-1 to D-7.
                   Mr. Anshuman Sood, Advocate for D-8/DMRC.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                         ORDER

% 14.09.2018

REVIEW PET. 261/2016 (by D-1 for review of the order dated 18.11.2015), I.A. 6547/2016 (for condonation of delay) and I.A. 6548/2016 (for interim orders)

1. At the outset, it may be noted that on the first page of the order sheet dated 03.08.2018, the Coram has wrongly mentioned the name of the members of a Division Bench though the cause title and the suit number have been correctly typed. Necessary corrections shall be carried out in respect of the Coram mentioned on the first page of the said order sheet.

2. The present applications have been filed by the defendant No.1/Company praying inter alia for reviewing the order dated 18.11.2015 and for seeking condonation of delay of 141 days in filing the review petition.

3. The order dated 18.11.2015 takes note of an earlier order passed on 17.09.2015 on which date, counsels for the parties had jointly stated that pursuant to their being referred to mediation, they had been able to negotiate a settlement the day before, i.e., on 16.09.2015 in terms whereof, the defendants No.1 to 7 had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.21 lacs to the plaintiffs in full and final settlement, while leaving only the modality of payment to be worked out. For this purpose, the case was placed back before the learned Mediator on 30.09.2015 and at the joint request of the counsels for the parties, the suit was adjourned to 29.10.2015.

4. On 18.11.2015, both sides were represented through their advocates. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs had submitted that Mr. A.K. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the defendants No.1 to 7 had appeared before the learned Mediator on 30.09.2015 alongwith Mr. S. Mukherjee, the authorized representative of the defendant No.1/company and stated that they could not give a fixed time schedule for making over the payment of the agreed amount till they had sufficient funds. Learned counsel for the defendants No.1 to 7 had replied that his clients wished to contest the suit. However, in view of the statement of the counsels for the parties recorded on 17.09.2015 to the effect that they had successfully negotiated a settlement and the defendants No. 1 to 7 had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.21 lacs to the plaintiffs, thus leaving only the aspect of the mode and manner of payment, this court was of the view that the defendants No.1 to 7 could not be permitted to renege from their earlier statement, under the garb of pleading insufficiency of funds for setting down a time schedule for making payment of the agreed amount.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs had then made a submission that his client would be satisfied if a decree is passed against the defendants No.1 to 7 for a sum of Rs.21 lacs, being the settled amount while leaving the issue of recovery thereof alongwith interest for which they were willing to resort to execution proceedings, if necessary. Accordingly, vide order dated 18.11.2015, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs for the agreed negotiated amount.

6. On 07.12.2015, the defendants filed an application (I.A. 25349/2015) through Mr. Aloke Kumar Bhattacharya, Advocate praying inter alia for correction in the order dated 18.11.2015, on the ground that it had wrongly been recorded in paras 2 and 3 of the said order that Mr. S. Mukherjee is the authorised representative of the defendants No.1 to 7 whereas he is the authorised representative of the defendant No.1/company alone and he had appeared before the learned Mediator and the Court in the said capacity. The affidavit filed alongwith the said application was that of Mr.Somnath Mukhopadhyay, General Manager (Corporate Affairs) of the defendant No.1/company, who had stated that he had been authorised by the Board Resolution of the defendant No.1/company to swear the affidavit in support of the application for rectification of the order dated 18.11.2015. The said application was duly allowed vide order dated 11.12.2015 and it was directed that the presence of Mr. S. Mukherjee shall be shown on 18.11.2015, as the authorised representative of the defendant No.1/company alone.

7. After almost six months reckoned from 18.11.2015, the defendant No.1/company filed the present review application through a different

counsel, Mr. Avneesh Garg, Advocate for seeking review of the order dated 18.11.2015. Accompanying the said application is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 141 days in filing the review application (I.A. 6547/2016). It is noteworthy that both, the review application as also the application for condonation of delay have been signed by Mr. Somnath Mukherjee, authorised representative of the defendant No.1/ Company. The said gentleman is the very same officer who had accompanied Mr. Aloke Kumar Bhattacharya, Advocate, the previous counsel engaged by the defendant No.1/company when he had appeared before the learned Mediator to negotiate a settlement with the plaintiff.

8. In the application for condonation of delay, the defendant No.1/ company has stated that the previous counsel had not informed them about the correct particulars of the order dated 18.11.2015 and it was only in the first week of December, 2015 that the defendant No.1/company came to know that the suit had been decreed against all the defendants. On inquiring from Mr. S. Mukherjee, the authorised representative of the defendant No.1/company, he had stated that he had not entered into any settlement as recorded in the order dated 18.11.2015.

9. Thereafter, defendant No.1/company claims to have engaged a new counsel on 22.12.2015, who inspected the court records and confirmed that no settlement was on the record. The defendant No.1/company then instructed their counsel to draft an appeal against the order dated 18.11.2015. The said appeal, registered as RFA(OS) 30/2016 was preferred before the Division Bench on 08.03.2016. On 19.04.2016, the defendant No.1/company withdrew the said appeal with liberty to file a review

application in these proceedings. Thereafter, the defendant No.1/company again changed their counsel and engaged a third counsel, which as per them took further time since the company is based in Kolkata. After engaging the third counsel, steps were taken to draft the review application, causing further delay. In this background, the defendant No.1/company seeks to explain a delay of 141 days in filing the review application.

10. In opposition to the application for condonation of delay, it has been stated on behalf of the plaintiffs that no liberty was granted by the Division Bench in RFA(OS) 30/2016 to the defendant No.1/company, to exhaust the remedy of review and nor can the company hide behind the plea that since it is based in Kolkata, they had no time to engage a counsel. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has referred to several other cases involving the defendant No.1/company that are pending in this High Court including RFA(OS) 302/2016, RFA 844/2015, RFA 392/2015, CS(OS) 642/2014 and CS(OS) 1145/2012. He states that the defendant No.1/company is a regular litigant and had all the time to take steps to engage a counsel but did not do so only to buy time. He thus states that no sufficient reason has been furnished by the defendant No.1/company for condoning the delay of 141 days in filing the review application and the said application being hopelessly barred by limitation, ought to be dismissed on this ground alone.

11. Coming to the averments made by the defendant No.1/company in the review application, primarily it has sought to urge that during the course of mediation, no consensus could be arrived at between the parties with respect to the amount, if any, payable to the plaintiff and therefore, no settlement was arrived at. On 17.09.2015, in the absence of the authorised

representative of the defendant No.1/Company, their counsel had made a wrong joint statement alongwith the counsel for the plaintiff that the parties had been able to negotiate a settlement in terms whereof, the defendant No.1/company had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.21 lakhs to the plaintiff and that only the mode of payment was left to be worked out for which, the matter was listed before the Mediator on 30.09.2015. Claiming that the aforesaid statement was made by the previous counsel without any authority and in the absence of the authorised representative of the defendant No.1/company, they had remained unaware of the proceedings in the matter and when the parties appeared before the learned Mediator subsequent to 17.09.2015, the mediation had failed, which fact could not be brought to the notice of the Court for the reason that the mediation report dated 29.10.2015, was not on record on the said date. Claiming further that their counsel had not informed them about passing of the consent decree on 18.11.2015, which fact came to their knowledge only in the month of December, 2015, inquiries were then made from the authorised representative of the defendant No.1/company, who denied that any such settlement had been entered with the plaintiff. The thrust of the arguments is that the statement made by the previous counsel for the defendants on 17.09.2015, to the effect that the parties had arrived at a settlement and that the defendants had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.21 lakhs to the plaintiff, only leaving the mode of payment to be worked out, was without any authority or instructions and therefore, the suit could not have been decreed by the Court on the basis of the unsuccessful mediation.

12. It has also been averred in the review application that before filing the said application, the defendant No.1/ Company had preferred an intra-court appeal against the order dated 18.11.2015, which was permitted to be withdrawn by the Division Bench on 19.04.2016. Thereafter, the defendant No.1/company had taken steps to file a complaint against their previous counsel before the Bar Council of India on 28.04.2016 and then it had proceeded to file the present review application on the ground that there is error apparent on the face of the order dated 18.11.2015.

13. To complete the sequence of events, it is noted that the review application was listed before this Court on 11.07.2016. On the said date, notice was issued to the counsel for the plaintiff and to Mr.A.K. Bhattacharya, the previous counsel appearing for the defendants No.1 to 7 as also to the counsel for the defendant No.8/DMRC, with further directions to Mr. A.K. Bhattacharya, Advocate to remain present on the next date of hearing, i.e., 21.09.2016. On 25.11.2016, Mr. A.K. Bhattacharya, the previous counsel for the defendants No.1 to 7 was present and stated that he had perused the averments made by the defendant No.1/company in the review application, which were completely contrary to the instructions he had received from his clients. He thus sought leave to file an affidavit to clarify his stand and narrate the sequence of events that had led to passing of the consent decree dated 18.11.2015 and the subsequent order dated 11.12.2015. Leave was granted to learned counsel to file an affidavit. Further, Mr. Somnath Mukherjee, the authorised representative of the defendant No.1/company was also directed to remain present on the next date of hearing. On receiving the affidavit from Mr.A.K. Bhattacharya,

Advocate, vide order dated 13.01.2017, liberty was granted to both sides to respond thereto, by filing their replies, if necessary.

14. In his affidavit dated 06.01.2017, Mr. A.K. Bhattacharya, the previous counsel for the defendant No.1/company and defendants No.2 to 7 stated that on instructions received from Mr. Somnath Mukherjee, the authorised representative of the defendant No.1/ Company to appear on behalf of the defendants in the present suit, he had entered appearance for the first time on 28.08.2014, but he was neither provided the case file nor a Power of Attorney by the authorised representative on the said date. Later on, he had drafted and filed a written statement on behalf of the defendants and a reply to an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, which the authorised representative of the defendant No.1/company had duly read and signed but he had never objected to the counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants No.1 to 7 or asked him to mark his presence only for the defendant No.1/company.

15. It is noteworthy that the index of the written statement filed under the signatures of Mr. A.K. Bhattacharya, Advocate mentions that the same has been filed on behalf of the "defendants". Similarly, the word, "defendants" has been mentioned on the last page of the written statement and the verification clause. Learned counsel has further averred in para 6 of the affidavit that the authorised representative of the defendant No.1/company had told him on a number of occasions that he wanted a reasonable settlement with the plaintiff as a cheque of Rs.10 lakhs issued by the company was already in the possession of the plaintiff and he had telephonically instructed learned counsel to make an offer of settlement if

the other side would be agreeable. He explains that it was in this background that a joint request was made to the Court on 03.07.2015 that the suit may be referred to mediation. Immediately thereafter, learned counsel had informed the authorised representative of the defendant No.1/company about the development and the said authorised representative had attended all the proceedings alongwith him before the learned Mediator, including on 09.07.2015.

16. Categorically denying the contention of the counsel for the defendant No.1/company that he had no instructions to make a statement before the Court for referring the suit to mediation, Mr. A.K. Bhattacharya, Advocate argues that had this been the case, the authorised representative of the defendant No.1/company would not have appeared with him before the learned Mediator and rather, objected to it. The affidavit alludes to the report dated 16.09.2015 submitted by the learned Mediator appointed by the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, which records that meetings were held with the parties and their respective counsels on 09.07.2015, 23.07.2015, 12.08.2015, 25.08.2015, 04.09.2015, 11.09.2015, 14.09.2015 and 16.09.2015. The said report concluded by recording that during the mediation held between the parties, they were open to negotiating a settlement, if some more time could be granted.

17. In para 7 of the affidavit, Mr. Bhattacharya states that the defendant No.1/company had first offered Rs.16 lakhs for a settlement in view of the fact that the principal amount due was nearly Rs.14 lakhs. But the plaintiff did not agree to the said amount and finally, the figure was settled at Rs.21 lakhs between the parties on 16.09.2015, in the presence of the learned

Mediator, the plaintiffs, his counsel, the authorised representative of the defendants and counsel for the defendants No.1 to 7. Since the authorised representative of the defendant No.1/company stated that he could not provide any timeline for making the payment, the learned Mediator did not close the mediation proceedings on 16.09.2015, but fixed the next date for mediation as 30.09.2015, since the matter was listed before the Court as 17.09.2015. Counsel for the plaintiffs and Mr. A.K. Bhattacharya, counsel for the defendants then informed the Court on 17.09.2015, that an amount of Rs.21 lakhs had been settled between the parties in the mediation but the mode of payment had yet to be settled. Resultantly, the matter was referred back to the Mediator on 30.09.2015. Thereafter, the plaintiff, his counsel, the authorised representative of the defendant No.1/company and the counsel for the defendants No.1 to 7 had appeared before the learned Mediator on three further dates and finally, on 29.10.2015, the mediation had ended in a non-settlement.

18. Mr. Bhattacharya, Advocate further states that on 18.11.2015, when the matter was listed in Court, he had stated that he had instructions from his clients that they wished to contest the suit, which request was turned down by the Court in view of the statement of the counsels for the parties recorded on 17.09.2015 to the effect that they had successfully negotiated a settlement whereunder the defendants had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.21 lakhs to the plaintiff.

19. Mr. A.K. Bhattacharya, Advocate states that he had apprised the authorised representative of the defendant No.1/company about the developments in the matter and had forwarded a copy of the order dated

18.11.2015 to him. On seeing the said order, the authorised representative had pointed out that he had wrongly been described, as the authorised representative of the defendants No.1 to 7 whereas he was only authorised to appear for the defendant No.1/company and had requested that the order dated 18.11.2015 be rectified. At his request, an application for rectification of the order dated 18.11.2015 was drafted by the learned counsel and the same was duly signed by the authorised representative of the defendant No.1/company and was subsequently allowed by the Court vide order dated 11.12.2015. It is submitted that even at that stage, the authorised representative of the defendant No.1/company did not ask learned counsel to get his own appearance for the defendants No.1 to 7 rectified. Mr. Bhattacharya, Advocate concludes by stating that he had acted strictly under the instructions of the authorised representative of the defendant No.1/company throughout the proceedings and the allegations levelled against him in the review application are patently false and baseless.

20. In the replies filed on behalf of the defendant No.1/company through Mr.Somnath Mukherjee, the very same authorised representative, the averments made in the affidavit filed by Mr. Bhattacharya, Advocate were denied. It was reiterated that since the mediation had failed, there was no question of a settlement being arrived at between the parties. Mr. Bhattacharya, Advocate was given an opportunity to rejoin to the affidavit filed on behalf of the authorised representative of the defendant No.1/company, which he did by reiterating the averments made by him in his affidavit to the effect that the authorised representative of the defendant No.1/company had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.21 lakhs to the plaintiff before

the learned Mediator when the plaintiff and his counsel were present during the mediation on 16.09.2015 and he had told the counsel a number of times that they wanted a reasonable settlement with the plaintiff and had specifically requested that the possibility of a settlement may be explored with the plaintiff.

21. Mr. Ashok Anand, learned counsel for the defendant No.1/review petitionist submits that the previous counsel had wrongly entered appearance on behalf of the defendants No.1 to 7, without any instructions in that regard and had made a wrong joint statement alongwith the counsel for the plaintiff that on being referred to mediation, the parties had been able to negotiate a settlement, whereunder the defendants had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.21 lakhs to the plaintiff. He contends that the defendant No.1/company was never informed by the previous counsel about passing of the order dated 18.11.2015, which fact came to their knowledge only in the month of December, 2015 and that any statement made by the said counsel without instructions, cannot be treated as an admission on the part of the defendant No.1/company for the purpose of decreeing the suit.

22. Per contra, Mr. M.S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the plaintiff has vehemently opposed the review application and states that the defendant No.1/company is trying to mislead the Court by stating that no consent was given by the authorised representative of the Company on 17.09.2015 or on 18.11.2015, with regard to the settlement. He states that the stand taken by the defendant No.1/company that the authorised representative of the company had not agreed to give his consent for the parties to be referred to mediation or that he had not appeared before the learned Mediator and had

not agreed to pay a sum of Rs.21 lakhs to the plaintiff, cannot be accepted when in less than three weeks from the date of passing of the consent decree, they had instructed their previous counsel to move an application for carrying out some corrections in the order dated 18.11.2015. He submits that the said application was filed by none other than Mr. Somnath Mukhopadhyay, the authorised representative of the defendant No.1/ company and it was never agitated before the Court that the defendants were dissatisfied with the orders dated 17.09.2015 or 18.11.2015. It is thus stated that the stand now sought to be taken by the defendant No.1/company is nothing but an afterthought and an attempt to frustrate the compromise decree.

23. This Court has perused the averments made in the present applications, the replies filed thereto, the contents of the affidavit filed by Mr. A.K. Bhattacharya, the previous counsel for the defendants No.1 to 7 and the reply, thereto, and has given its thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties.

24. Two fold pleas have been taken by learned counsel for the defendant No.1/company for seeking review of the order dated 18.11.2015, one that the authorised representative of the company had never instructed Mr. Bhattacharya, the previous counsel engaged by them to explore the possibility of negotiating a settlement with the plaintiff, much less entering into a settlement and that the fact that a consent decree was passed on 18.11.2015, had never been communicated to the authorised representative of the defendant No.1/company. The second plea is that the learned counsel had never been engaged by any of the defendants from amongst defendants

No.1 to 7, but was only briefed to appear on behalf of the defendant No.1/company.

25. The second plea of the defendant No.1/company falls flat in view of the fact that the records reveal that Powers of Attorney filed by Mr. A.K. Bhattacharya, Advocate under index dated 01.02.2012, were five in number. The defendant No.1/company had signed a separate vakalatnama in favour of the learned counsel through its Company Secretary and four separate vakalatnamas were executed by the defendant No.2, defendant No.3, defendant No.4 and defendant No.5 in favour of the learned counsel. Earlier thereto, counsel for the defendant No.1/company had filed a Power of Attorney on behalf of the company under index dated 23.11.2011. Thus, it does not lie in the mouth of the defendant No.1/company to urge that the previous counsel had only been engaged to appear on behalf of the defendant No.1/company and not for the rest of the defendants. Even a glance at the written statement filed under the signatures of Mr. A.K. Bhattacharya, Advocate demonstrates that the same was filed on behalf of the „defendants‟, though the affidavit filed in support thereof was that of Mr.Somnath Mukhopadhyay, described as the General Manager (Corporate Affairs) of the defendant No.1/company. In any event, no separate written statement has been filed by any of the remaining defendants No.2 to 7. The order sheets also reflect the appearance of Mr. A. Chakraborty, Advocate on behalf of the defendants No.1 to 5 at some places and for defendants No.1 to 7 at other places.

26. This Court is not inclined to accept the submission made by learned counsel for the defendant No.1/company that no instructions were given to

the previous counsel to compromise the matter with the plaintiff for the reason that the order dated 03.07.2015 clearly records the submission of the learned counsel for the defendants No.1 to 7 that his clients were ready and willing to negotiate a settlement with the plaintiff through mediation. Once the other side had given its no objection, the parties were duly referred to mediation. The order dated 03.07.2015 had also recorded that officers competent to take a decision on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendants No.1 to 7 would remain present alongwith their counsels before the learned Mediator for discussion and negotiations. The records further reveal that the parties had duly appeared alongwith their counsel on several dates before the learned Mediator, as is apparent from the mediation report dated 29.10.2015.

27. This Court finds no good reason to disbelieve the submission of Mr. A.K. Bhattacharya, Advocate that he had clear instructions to initiate talks of settlement with the plaintiff and he was duly accompanied by the authorised representative of the defendant No.1/company when talks of settlement were going on before the learned Mediator. Nor is there any valid reason for this Court to disbelieve learned counsel when he states that he had made a statement under the instructions on 17.09.2015, that the parties had been able to negotiate a settlement before the learned Mediator the day before, whereunder the defendants had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.21 lakhs to the plaintiff. It was in view of the said admission that the suit was decreed on 18.11.2015, in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties and recorded on 17.09.2015.

28. There is merit in the plea taken by Mr. A.K. Bhattacharya, Advocate that he had duly communicated the order dated 18.11.2015 to his clients and

they were well aware of the fact that a consent decree had been passed, but did not object thereto. The said view is fortified by the fact that the very same authorised representative of the defendant No.1/company had moved an application through the previous counsel praying inter alia for rectification of the order dated 18.11.2015, wherein he had been described as the authorised representative of the defendants No.1 to 7 instead of the defendant No.1/company alone. This Court is sceptical of the plea taken by the defendant No.1/company that the order dated 18.11.2015 was not to the knowledge of the defendants No.1 to 7 when in less than three weeks from the date of passing of the said order, an application for rectification was moved by the authorised representative of the defendant No.1/company. It is hard to believe that the defendant No.1/company was unaware of the passing of the consent decree on 18.11.2015. Had there been a genuine grievance with regard to any incorrect statement made by their counsel on 17.09.2015, then remedial steps would have been taken by the defendant No.1/company at the same time. But no such steps were taken except for moving an innocuous application for seeking correction in the order dated 18.11.2015, regarding the presence of the authorized representative, which correction were duly permitted by the Court. Having tried their luck in the intra-court appeal and on failing to get any relief, the defendant No.1/company had beaten a hasty retreat and withdrawn the appeal with a request to file a review application, though no permission to this effect was granted by the Division Bench.

29. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court rejects the submission made by learned counsel for the defendant No.1/company that

there is an error apparent on the face of the order dated 18.11.2015, that requires review. On the contrary, it is a clear case where the defendant No.1/company is trying to use every trick in the book to renege from the settlement arrived at with the plaintiff, as recorded in the order dated 17.09.2015. It is noteworthy that even while filing the present review application, the defendant No.1/company has not sought a review/recall of the order dated 17.09.2015. Instead, the present application has been confined to seeking review of the order dated 18.11.2015 that has only noted the statement of the counsels for the parties already recorded on 17.09.2015, to the effect that they had been able to negotiate a settlement before the learned Mediator the day before i.e., on 16.09.2015 and in terms thereof, the defendants had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.21 lakhs to the plaintiff.

30. In the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that the defendant No.1/company was all along aware of the passing of the order dated 18.11.2015, as they had not lost any time to move an application for correction in the said order, that was filed in Court on 07.12.2015 and allowed on 11.12.2015. Pertinently, a copy of the order dated 18.11.2015 was duly enclosed by the defendant No. 1/company with the said application. The affidavit filed in support of the said application is of none other than Mr. Somnath Mukherjee, described as the General Manager (Corporate Affairs) of the defendant No.1/company. It may be noted that under the index dated 18.03.2015, the previous counsel for the defendants had filed a Power of Attorney executed by the aforesaid officer on behalf of the company alongwith an extract of the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors of the defendant No.1/company, wherein Mr. Somnath

Mukherjee has been described as "Mr. Somnath Mukhopadhyay (Mukherjee), President (Corporate Affairs) of the company". When such a senior ranking officer of the defendant No.1/company was giving instructions to the previous counsel, then the latter cannot be blamed for acting on his instructions. Moreover, the authorized representative of the defendant No.1/company had been appearing with Mr. Bhattacharya, Advocate before the learned Mediator. Had there been any substance in the plea of the defendant No.1/company that no instructions were given to their previous counsel for negotiating a settlement with the plaintiff and that no settlement was ever arrived at, then there was no good reason for the defendant No.1/company to have moved an interim application asking for correction in the presence marked in the order dated 18.11.2015, without disputing the authority given to their previous counsel to negotiate a settlement with the plaintiff.

31. Further, the reason for explaining the delay of 141 days in filing the review application as mentioned in I.A. 6547/2016, is also found to be devoid of merits. The plea of the defendant No.1/company that since they are based in Kolkata, they found it difficult to engage a new counsel for representing them in the present case falls to the ground in the light of the fact that they appear to be regular litigants with several cases filed by or against them in the High Court, as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs in the reply filed to the review application and recorded in para above. It is noteworthy that the defendant No.1/company has elected not to file a rejoinder to the reply filed by the plaintiff to the review application and to the application for condonation of delay, wherein

specific reference has been made to several other cases of the company pending in this High Court. Therefore, it has been assumed that the averments made therein with regard to the pending litigation in respect of the defendant No.1/company are true and correct.

32. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and given the sequence of events recorded hereinabove, this Court does not find any merit in the review application or the accompanying applications for condonation of delay and grant of interim orders. These applications are only a ruse to avoid facing the consequences of the consent order dated 18.11.2015, that does not suffer from any apparent error. The said applications are accordingly dismissed as meritless.

HIMA KOHLI, J SEPTEMBER 14, 2018 na/rkb/sk