VARIJA BAJAJ & ANR. vs M/S ASSOTECH LTD. & ORS.

2024-01-24 Information

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 12.01.2024
Pronounced on: 24.01.2024

+ CONT.CAS(C) 1877/2023
MRS VARIJA BAJAJ & ANR. ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vikas Arora, Ms. Radhika Arora, Mr. Sachin Arora and Mohd. Azhar, Advocates
versus

M/S ASSOTECH LTD THROUGH DIRECTORS
SANJEEV SRIVASTAVA & ORS. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Mehak Jain, Advocate for R-3

+ CONT.CAS(C) 1306/2023 & CM APPL. 2259/2024
VARIJA BAJAJ & ANR. ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vikas Arora, Ms. Radhika Arora, Mr. Sachin Arora and Mohd. Azhar, Advocates
versus

M/S ASSOTECH LTD. & ORS. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Mehak Jain, Advocate for R-3

+ CRL.M.C. 2424/2020
PRIYA SRIVASTVA & OTHERS ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate with Ms. Mehak Jain, Advocate for R-3

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANOTHER ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikas Arora, Ms. Radhika Arora, and Mr. Sachin Arora, Advocates for R-2

CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
CM APPL. 2259/2024 in CONT.CAS(C) 1306/2023
1. The above-mentioned criminal contempt petition under Sections 2 (b) and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, was instituted on behalf of respondent no. 3, for wilful disobedience of the order dated 17.11.2022, passed in CRL.M.C. 2424/2020, titled as Priya Srivastava & Ors Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
2. By way of present application, respondent no. 3 seeks extension of time to comply with the undertaking given before this Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are that complainants Arvind Bajaj and Varija Bajaj had made investments towards the purchase of the flats at one of the projects of Assotech Moonshile Urban Developers Pvt. Ltd. in which the petitioners are Directors. The complainants had made an investment of Rs.65 lakhs and Rs.1,28,40,000/- respectively with a provision of buy back of the said flats. However, the accused persons had failed to provide return on investment or buy back the said flat in terms of their agreement. Thereafter, the complainants had registered an FIR bearing no. 156/2009 at Police Station Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi for offence punishable under Sections 420/406/409/506/120B/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against Assotech Moonshile Urban Developers Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors. Thereafter, the Directors of Assotech Moonshile Urban Developers Pvt. Ltd. had filed the quashing petition i.e. CRL.M.C. 2424/2020, after which this Court had vide order dated 26.07.2021 referred the parties for mediation to Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre (Samadhan). Pursuant thereto, the parties had arrived at a settlement vide Settlement agreement dated 20.04.2022 and the same was also recorded by this Court in order dated 17.11.2022. The order dated 05.09.2023 of this Court further records that the learned counsel for petitioners had stated on instructions that the petitioners were willing to abide by the conditions of the mediation agreement and that they would make payment within two months, and an affidavit will be submitted to the same effect on the next date of hearing, i.e. 14.09.2023. The petitioners had again approached this Court seeking an opportunity of extension for a period of two months for discharging their liability. This Court after considering the said plea and ensuring that the settlement arrived at between the parties is honoured, had granted an extension of two months on payment of cost of Rs. 2,00,000 (Rupees Two Lakhs Only), vide order dated 15.09.2023.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3 Sh. Sanjeev Srivastava states that the complainants have already received a total amount of Rs. 1,78,77,325/-, out of invested amount of Rs. 1,93,40,000/- and thus, almost entire principal amount has already been paid to them. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel that it was duly agreed between the parties that amount shall be paid from the sale of the security flats by the respondents, and the respondents have done their best efforts to sell the flat and have even entered into agreement to sell. However, it is stated that they have yet not received payment from the buyers. It is argued that the respondents require one last indulgence of this Court, and they be granted an extension of about six months, in order to discharge their liability as per the settlement since they will be receiving a payment in lieu of sale of their flats.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners opposes the present application seeking extension of time to pay the money and argues that this Court vide order dated 15.09.2023 had granted one more opportunity to the respondents/accused and had extended the time period for payment of settlement amount by a further period of two months and no more opportunities should be granted to the respondents herein.
6. This Court has heard arguments addressed by both the parties and has perused the material on record.
7. At this juncture, the applicants are here before this Court to seek a further extension for a period of two months for making the payment to the petitioners. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant/respondent no. 3 had argued that the respondents have already made part payment of their dues to the complainants and only the remaining amount has to be paid after sale of flats. It is their case that they are trying to sell the said flats and require a short extension of the period so as to discharge their liabilities towards the complainants.
8. This Court notes that the petitioners herein have been given several opportunities for discharging their liability as per the settlement agreement dated 20.04.2022. This Court had, in its order dated 05.09.2023, recorded that the accused persons had agreed to make payment within a period of two months, however on 14.09.2023, more time was sought for the same. This Court vide order dated 15.09.2023 had then granted one more opportunity to the accused persons for making the payment of entire settlement amount and had extended the time period granted to them on 05.09.2023, by a further period of two months.
9. However, considering the overall facts and circumstances, and the fact that the respondents submit that they are making efforts towards sale of their flats so that proceeds from the said sale can be paid to the complainants herein, and also considering the necessity to facilitate the timely fulfillment of outstanding dues, this Court finds deems it fit to extend the time period, to comply with the settlement agreement, till 31.03.2024. This extension, however, is subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2 lakhs to the petitioners herein within a period of three weeks.
10. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of in above terms.
11. It is, however, clarified that nothing expressed hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

CONT.CAS(C) 1877/2023, CONT.CAS(C) 1306/2023 & CRL.M.C. 2424/2020
12. List on 10.05.2024.
13. The Judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
JANUARY 24, 2024
Aanchal

CONT.CAS(C) 1877/2023 and connected matters Page 1 of 6