Scheider Electric India Pvt. Ltd v. Rentworks India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. MAY 15, 2019 "bs"..

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 15th May, 2019 + CS(OS) 598/2018 & IA No.4852/2019 (u/O XII R-6 CPC) SCHEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through: Ms. Mohna M. Lal, Mr. Prashant Kumar and Ms. Geetali Talukdar, Advs. Versus RENTWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Raj Shekhar Rao, Mr. Vipul Ganda, Ms. Aastha Trivedi and Ms. Chandreyee Maitrai, Advs. for D-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW Review Petition No.211/2019 1. The defendant No.1 seeks review of the order dated 16th April, 2019. 2. The senior counsel for the defendant no.1/review applicant has been heard. 3. It is expedient to elucidate the facts. 4. The plaintiff had taken equipment on hire / lease from the defendant No.1/review applicant and which equipment was hypothecated by the defendant No.1/review applicant with the defendants No.2&3 i.e. IndusInd Bank & L&T Financial Services. Holding company of the plaintiff had also issued a letter to the defendants No.2&3 assuring payment of lease rentals directly by the plaintiff to the defendants No.2&3. 5. The plaintiff entered into a Closure Agreement dated 4th September, 2018 with the defendant No.1/review applicant whereunder the lease agreement was closed and the said equipment was agreed to be sold to the plaintiff for total consideration of Rs.24,43,08,047/-. 6. It is the case of the plaintiff in the plaint in this suit that though it has paid the total consideration of Rs.24,43,08,047/- to the defendant No.1/review applicant on the assurance of the defendant No.1/review applicant that the defendant No.1/review applicant will clear the hypothecation amount due to the defendants No.2&3 but has not done so, resulting the defendants No.2&3 demanding the rentals from the plaintiff, even though the plaintiff is no longer liable to pay rental after the Closure Agreement and that the defendants No.2&3 are threatening to write to the Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited (CIBIL) to reduce the credit rating of the plaintiff. The plaintiff thus instituted this suit, as for specific performance but in fact for recovery of Rs.10,18,84,236/- being the amount due to the defendants No.2&3. 7. The suit came up before this Court first on 26th November, 2018, when the senior counsel for the plaintiff stated that the plaintiff was ready and willing to deposit the said amount of Rs.10,18,84,236/- with the defendants No.2&3 to avoid any reduction in its credit rating. The suit was entertained and summons thereof ordered to be issued and ex-parte ad- interim relief granted restraining HDFC Bank with which the defendant no.1 had an account from allowing withdrawal / allowing operations from the said account to the extent of Rs.10,18,84,236/-. 8. On 5th December, 2018, a) the counsel for the defendant No.3 stated that its dues since stood settled; b) the counsel for the defendant No.2 however stated that a sum of Rs.4,50,25,206/- was still outstanding to it; it was informed that the plaintiff, after 26th November, 2018 had paid a sum of Rs.3,94,57,110/- to the defendant No.2 and a sum of Rs.1,91,15,676/- to the defendant No.3 on behalf of the defendant No.1/review applicant and the said amounts were thus due from the defendant No.1/review applicant to the plaintiff. 9. In the orders dated 2nd April, 2019 and 16th April, 2019, for the reasons recorded therein, it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree forthwith in the sum of Rs.5,85,73,786/- against the defendant No.1/review applicant. The counsel for the defendant No.1/review applicant, on 2nd April, 2019 stated that the defendant No.1/review applicant was in the process of filing a Counter-Claim against the plaintiff and the passing of the decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No.1/review applicant may be deferred. However on 16th April, 2019 the counsel for defendant no.1 review applicant stated that though he was carrying the Counter-Clai