Delhi High Court
M/S Intermolde India Through Its ... vs M/S Supreme Industries Ltd on 9 February, 2023
Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/001038
$~39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 09.02.2023
+ CM(M) 211/2023
M/S INTERMOLDE INDIA THROUGH
ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR SH J K SRIVASTAVA ..... Petitioner
versus
M/S SUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anup Kumar, Mr. Satyaprakash,
Ms. Neha Jaiswal and Ms. Shruti
Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent : None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)
[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]
CM APPL. 6304/2023 (for exemption)
1. This is an application seeking exemption from filing certified
copies of the annexures.
2. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
3. The application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 211/2023 & CM APPL. 6303/2023 (Stay)
4. The petitioner challenges the orders dated 06.12.2022 and
22.12.2022 passed by the Executing Court in Ex.799/2018 titled 'M/s
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:14.02.2023
15:11:01
Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/001038
Supreme Industries Ltd vs. M/s Intermolde India' whereby the learned
Trial Court, on the failure of the petitioner/JD to comply with its own
undertaking, had imposed cost of Rs.5,000/- for each day of delay in
compliance of the undertaking w.e.f. 07.12.2022 onwards.
5. Mr. Anup Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
argued that there is no provision under Order 21 of CPC whereby the
learned Trial Court could have imposed such cost.
6. Mr. Kumar, learned counsel submits that there are other measures
that the Executing Court could have taken to ensure compliance but the
order of payment of cost per day of delay was not within its jurisdiction.
7. This Court has perused the orders dated 06.12.2022 as well as
22.12.2022 and is of the opinion that the imposition of such cost and
that too prohibitive cost per day would not be appropriate in the facts of
the case in view of the absence of any such provisions under Order 21
CPC empowering the Executing Court to pass any such order.
8. However, it is observed that the petitioner/JD has failed to comply
with its own undertaking for a couple of hearings before the impugned
order was passed and anguish of the Court is displayed clearly in the
impugned order.
9. The petitioner/JD had itself given an undertaking to deposit an
amount of Rs.15.05 Lacs by way of a Demand Draft on 16.06.2022 in
compliance of order dated 06.11.2020. It appears that it is in these
circumstances that the learned Trial Court was constrained to pass the
impugned order.
10. Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an
amount of Rs.3 Lacs has already been deposited and leaving the balance
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:14.02.2023
15:11:01
Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/001038
of Rs.12.05 Lacs as on today. Mr. Kumar submits that the petitioner/JD
would be depositing the sum of Rs.12.05 Lacs within next 15 days.
11. The petitioner may do so.
12. In view of the submissions of Mr. Kumar, regarding the deposit of
Rs.12.05 Lacs within 15 days from today before the learned Executing
Court, nothing further survives in the present petition.
13. The petitioner is bound by the statement.
14. The learned Trial Court shall give the benefit of such deposit in
accordance with law.
15. It would do well for the Executing Court not to take any coercive
measure atleast till the next 15 days within which the petitioner/JD
would deposit the aforesaid amount.
16. Simultaneously, it is made clear that the direction in regard to
costs as directed vide orders dated 06.12.2022 and 22.12.2022, is set
aside and shall not be given effect to.
17. The petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
FEBRUARY 09, 2023
Aj
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:14.02.2023
15:11:01
