Delhi High Court
Spacebiz Solution Pvt Ltd vs Ajay Sharma on 12 November, 2020
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 12.11.2020
+ CM(M) 570/2020
SPACEBIZ SOLUTION PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
versus
AJAY SHARMA ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL.29073/2020 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CM(M) 570/2020
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner impugns order dated 14.09.2020, whereby, written
statement sought to be filed by the petitioner is not taken on record on
the ground that the costs imposed by order dated 16.12.2019 by the
High Court were not paid within time.
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:13.11.2020 10:41:56
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
3. Respondent had filed the subject suit seeking recovery of a sum
of Rs.35,48,967/-. By order dated 26.04.2017, leave to defend was
granted subject to petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.5 lakhs in the
form of a fixed deposit in favour of the Court. Fixed deposit of Rs.5
lakhs was deposited with the Trial Court, however, the written
statement was delayed and an application seeking condonation of
delay was filed, which was rejected by the Trial Court and the defence
was struck off.
4. The High Court in its order dated 16.12.2019 has noticed that
the leave to defend was granted on 26.04.2017 and the written
statement was filed on 25.07.2017, which was within a period of 90
days and the condition to deposit Rs.5 lakhs was complied with by the
petitioner. The High Court directed written statement to be taken on
record on payment of costs of Rs.20,000/- on or before the next date
fixed before the Trial Court.
5. The suit was listed before the Trial Court on 23.12.2019 when
the Trial Court noticed that the file had not been received from the
High Court and adjourned the case to 26.03.2020. By 26.03.2020, the
lockdown of Courts on account of COVID-19 pandemic started.
6. The suit was listed before the Trial Court on 14.09.2020
through video conferencing. On 14.09.2020, counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the costs could not be paid as the file had not
been received on 23.12.2019 and a cheque for payment of costs had
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:13.11.2020 10:41:56
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
been received by him from his client but could not be paid to the
counsel in view of the lockdown. Despite the same being pointed out
to the Trial Court, the Trial Court has held that since the costs was not
paid before the Trial Court on or before 23.12.2019, as directed by the
High Court, the written statement could not be taken on record.
7. Perusal of the ordersheet of the Trial Court dated 23.12.2019
shows that the file was not received from the High Court and no
proceedings could take place and thereafter the case was adjourned to
26.03.2020 by which time the lockdown of Courts commenced. The
case was taken up through video conferencing on 14.09.2020, on
which date, the costs were sought to be tendered but were not
accepted by the Trial Court.
8. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and
also the COVID-19 pandemic, I am of the view that there is no delay
on the part of the petitioner in tendering the costs. The expression "on
or before the next date" used by the High Court would amount to the
date when the matter is actually taken up. On 23.12.2019, the date
fixed before the Trial Court, the file had not been received by the Trial
Court and accordingly, the tendering of the cheque could not have
been recorded by the Trial Court.
9. Petitioner has placed on record copies of the cheques dated
19.12.2019 and 22.09.2020 in the sum of Rs.20,000/- drawn in favour
of the respondent issued by the petitioner.
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:13.11.2020 10:41:56
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
10. In my view, there is no delay in petitioner tendering the costs in
terms of the order of the High Court dated 16.12.2019.
11. In view of the above the impugned order dated 14.09.2020 is
set aside. The written statement filed by the petitioner is taken on
record of the Trial Court.
12. Respondent is directed to furnish his bank details, within a
period of 2 days to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The
petitioner shall thereafter deposit the costs in the said account within a
period of one week of furnishing of the bank details.
13. Petition is, accordingly, allowed in the above terms.
14. Copy of the Judgment be uploaded on the High Court website and be
also forwarded to learned counsels through email by the Court Master.
NOVEMBER 12, 2020 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
st
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:13.11.2020 10:41:56
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
