VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2018 › High Court of Delhi

Sangeeta Agarwal v. Jawahar Lal Nehru Sports Trust

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
27 July 2018
Bench
Rajiv Sahai Endlawauthor
Case no.
RSA 108/2018

Judgment

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. JULY 27, 2018 'pp'..

Case details

Parties and counsel

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 27th July, 2018 + RSA 108/2018 SANGEETA AGARWAL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. J.M. Bari and Ms. Shweta Bari, Advs. versus JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU SPORTS TRUST .... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW CM No.29727/2018 (for exemption). 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. RSA 108/2018. 3. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree [dated 27th February, 2018 in RCA No.13/17 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (West)] of dismissal of First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree [dated 20th December, 2016 in CS SCJ No.9937/16 of the Court of the Civil Judge-04 (West)] of dismissal of suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.2,85,000/- along with interest from the respondent/defendant/Trust. 4. The counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has been heard and the copies of the relevant record of the suit filed along with the memorandum of appeal perused. 5. The appellant/plaintiff instituted the suit, from which this appeal arises, pleading (i) that there was a joint organization by the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant/Trust, of a tournament called Commonwealth High Commission Cricket Tournament held from 24th February, 2007 to 15th April, 2007 at National Stadium, India Gate and Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium, Lodhi Road, New Delhi and of a cricket match between the Members of Parliament and foreign media held at Delhi Development Authority (DDA) Siri Fort Sports Complex, New Delhi; (ii) that in connection with the said tournament and cricket match, the appellant/plaintiff was instructed to get sponsorship of Rs.3,22,000/- for tournament and of Rs.10,00,000/- for the cricket match; (iii) that there was a tacit agreement with the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant/Trust that whatever savings would come from the said two events, the same shall be shared by the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant/Trust equally; (iv) that the appellant/plaintiff came to know that there was a saving of about Rs.5,00,000/- from the said two events, after incurring all the expenses; as such the appellant/plaintiff was entitled to receive a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the respondent/defendant/Trust towards her share; and, (v) that the said amount was payable immediately after the said two events and since had not been paid, interest at 24% per annum was also due from the respondent/defendant/Trust to the appellant/plaintiff. 6. Thus, the suit for recovery of Rs.2,85,000/- with pendente lite and future interest. 7. The respondent/defendant/Trust contested the suit, inter alia pleading, (i) that the respondent/defendant/Trust is a registered Trust for the object of public charities and to carry on social and other charitable activities, purely on non-profitable basis and has been granted an order under Section 80(G) (V) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; (ii) that the respondent/defendant/Trust cannot and does not indulge itself in any kind of understanding/arrangement for making of profit, directly or indirectly; (iii) denying that there was any understanding/arrangement with the appellant/plaintiff, much less a tacit understanding; (iv) denying that the events aforesaid were a joint venture or joint organisation of the parties; (v) that the respondent/defendant/Trust held the said events with the support of its sponsors; (vi) denying that the appellant/plaintiff was asked to get sponsorships for the said events; (vii) the appellant/plaintiff was merely acknowledged by the respondent/defendant/Trust as one of the volunteers who, because of their own volition and charitable interest, supported the respondent/defendant/Trust in holding of the aforesaid events; (viii) denying that there was any savings from the events or in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/-;(ix) on the

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.