M/S ANTRIKSH ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. vs SH. BRAHAM PRAKASH YADAV & ORS.
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 14th February, 2024
+ CS(COMM) 586/2022
M/S ANTRIKSH ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. ….. Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Naveen Malik, Advocate.
versus
SH. BRAHAM PRAKASH YADAV & ORS. ….. Defendants
Through: Mr. Manmohan Yadav, Advocate for LRs of D-1.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T (oral)
I.A. 3574/2024:Application u/O VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908) filed by Legal Heirs of Defendant No.1 for Rejection of plaint:
1. An application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC has been filed on behalf of the LR’s of defendant No.1 for rejection of the plaint.
2. It is submitted in the application that the plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.7,77,00,000/- against the defendants on account of breach of Collaboration Agreement dated 27.07.2013.
3. The LRs of defendant No. 1 have claimed rejection of the suit on the ground that there is no cause of action that has accrued in favour of the plaintiff.
4. It is further submitted that the share of the defendants has not altered in terms of the Collaboration Agreement even after the Order of the District Magistrate in Appeal No.90/2004 on the basis of which the plaintiff has filed the suit. It is asserted that the plaintiff has made misrepresentation of facts in this regard.
5. It is further submitted that the Collaboration Agreement was executed on 27.07.2013 and the limitation period for challenging it is of three years. As the limitation for filing the suit expired on 26.07.2017, the suit is barred by limitation.
6. It is further asserted that the material facts have been concealed by the plaintiff. He has concealed that the LRs of defendant No.1, i.e. defendant No.1B & C had already worked with the Director of plaintiff Company. The Director of the plaintiff Company was close friend of the father of the answering defendant No. 1B & C.
7. Furthermore, the plaintiff has concealed that it had duly verified the ownership of defendant No.1 from the Fard Khatoni which also contain the details of Appeal No.90/2004.
8. It is further asserted that the suit is not properly valued and proper Court Fees has not been paid. It is submitted that the suit is liable to rejected for the aforementioned grounds.
9. The counsel for the plaintiff/ respondent herein has argued that the plaint clearly discloses a cause of action and proper court fee has been paid along with the application. Thus, it is contended that the present application is liable to be dismissed.
10. Submissions heard.
11. The plaintiff had claimed recovery of Rs.7,77,00,000/- from the defendants on the averments that it had entered into a Collaboration Agreement dated 27.07.2013 and had given a valuable consideration of Rs.3 Crores to the defendants in anticipation of the development of the real estate projects/township in the vicinity of IGI Airport in accordance with the Master Plan of Delhi, 2021.
12. The aforesaid Policy was inchoate at the time of entering into the Collaboration Agreement and thus, it was agreed that the Collaboration Agreement could be terminated by either party if within seven years of Agreement, the land was not developed due to revocation, suspension or keeping in abeyance of the Policy of the Government. It was also agreed that the parties shall return/restitute the benefit derived under the Collaboration Agreement.
13. It is submitted in the plaint that Shri Jug Lal (father of the defendant No. 1 & 2) had one more son Heeranand who died on 06.01.2003 and his wife Sunita died on 11.10.2004 leaving behind two minor daughters Kumari Ekta and Kumari Monica. Defendants connived and got the share of Late Heeranand mutated in the name of Sarti Devi @ Angoori Devi (wife of late Shri Jug Lal) on 16.11.2004. This was challenged by the two daughters of Heeranand by filing Appeal No.90, 91 & 92/2004 which were allowed on 27.08.2021 and the share of Late Heeranand was mutated in favour of his two daughters and mother being Class-I heirs.
14. The plaintiff has thus, claimed recovery of Rs.3 Crores paid by him under the Collaboration Agreement along with interest and the present suit for recovery of Rs.7,77,00,000/-, has been filed.
15. The first objection taken by the defendant is that the suit is barred by limitation as admittedly the Collaboration Agreement was entered into on 27.07.2013, while the Suit has been filed on 17.08.2022 which is beyond a period of three years.
16. It has been specifically stated in the plaint that the Collaboration Agreement 2013 could be terminated within a period of seven years which expired in 2020. The plaintiff thereafter issued a Legal Notice dated 12.02.2022 rescinding the Collaboration Agreement. The present suit has been filed on 17.08.2022 and is within the period of limitation as per the averments made in the plaint. The defendant however, is at liberty to raise the issue of Limitation, if he so desires since it may be a mixed question of fact and law.
17. The second objection taken by the applicant is that no cause of action has been disclosed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has categorically stated that if as per the Agreement the land was not developed due to revocation, suspension or for any other reason, either party would be entitled to recover the benefit under the Agreement. There is specific averment that the Collaboration Agreement did not get implemented and thus, has sought recovery of the money paid by the plaintiff to the defendant at the time of entering into the Collaboration Agreement. Therefore, the suit discloses a cause of action which is within limitation.
18. The other averments in the plaint that there was concealment/misrepresentation of facts is only to corroborate his claim for recovery of the money.
19. The valuation of the suit has also been done at Rs.7,77,00,000/- and the Court Fee has been paid accordingly.
20. On the face of it the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been filed patently to delay and drag the litigation and is bereft of any merit and the same is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff on the next date of hearing.
21. The application is accordingly dismissed.
CS(COMM) 586/2022
22. List on the date already fixed i.e. 22.02.2024 before the learned Joint Registrar.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 14, 2024
Va/Ek
CS(COMM) 586/2022 Page 5 of 5