AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL):
CCP (O) 51/2023, IA No. 16516/2022 and I.A. 6618/2023
In pursuance to the order dated 09.08.2024, Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC has entered appearance on behalf of the Registrar of Companies, Delhi (‘ROC’) along with Deputy ROC, Mr. Y. Vijayasimha Reddy.
She states that the defaults committed by the defendant Company have now come to the attention of the ROC after receiving a copy of the order dated 09.08.2024 passed by this Court. She states that as per the records available with the ROC the last balance sheet uploaded is for the year ending on 31.03.2019.
She states that the non-filing of the annual returns would attract the violation of Section 92 read with Section 137 of the Companies Act, 2013 (Act of 2013).
She states that the disqualification under Section 164 of the Act of 2013 consequent to the willful inactions/defaults of the Directors of the defendant Company i.e., Mr. Dev Kumar Arora, Mr. Vikram Handa and Mr. Noorul Arfeen will also be examined and the action taken report in this regard will be placed before this Court within two (2) weeks.
Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC states that though Mr. Vikram Handa has filed his DIR-11, the defendant Company has not filed the DIR-12 and therefore, as per the records of the ROC, the resignation of Mr. Vikram Handa does not take affect and he remains liable for the affairs of the Company until the DIR-12 is uploaded by the defendant Company. The said statement is taken on record.
The ROC is directed to file its Action Taken Report (‘ATR’) within two (2) weeks.
Mr. Vikram Handa and Mr. Dev Kumar Arora are personally present in Court. Mr. Noorul Arfeen, is not present in Court and is stated to be presently in Kuwait, where he is gainfully employed.
The Chartered Accountant Mr. Nikhil Arora was examined and his statement is recorded. In the statement he has confirmed that certificate dated 08.08.2024 issued by him does not constitute evidence of existence of the movable assets of the defendant Company as on 31.03.2024 and the same was issued at the request of Mr. Vikram Handa. The signed statement of Mr. Nikhil Arora is directed to be placed on record in the pleadings folder.
The ROC, Delhi as noted above, has confirmed that the defendant Company has failed to comply with its statutory obligations and has not filed its balance sheets/annual returns after the period ending 31.03.2019.
Mr. Abhimanyu Walia, learned counsel for defendant Company states on instructions from Mr. Vikram Handa and Mr. Dev Kumar Arora that the only bank account held by the defendant Company is Account No. 50200032536876 held at HDFC Bank, Branch Janpath.
He states that the sole signatory of this bank account is Mr. Vikram Handa as on date.
He states that despite the resignation tendered by Mr. Vikram Handa ostensibly on 13.06.2023, he is the individual who solely ran the operations of the restaurant in the leased property i.e., property bearing no. F-14 and F-15, F-Block, Inner Circle, CP, Delhi and exclusively managed the affairs of the defendant Company. He fairly states that Mr. Vikram Handa is the person in-charge of the affairs of the company and thus, the real person behind the operations of the defendant Company.
He confirms that DIR 12 with respect to the resignation of Mr. Vikram Handa purportedly on 13.06.2023 has not been filed with the ROC.
He states, that Mr. Dev Kumar Arora, and Mr. Noorul Arfeen are dummy directors of the defendant Company and have no role in the management and the affairs of the Company.
He states on instructions from Mr. Vikram Handa that the shareholding of the defendant Company is held by Mr. Vikram Handa along with his wife Mrs. Bhawana Handa in the ratio of 50:50.
Mr. Mayank Arora, Advocate appearing for Mr. Vikram Handa affirms each of the submission of Mr. Abhimanyu Walia, Advocate appearing for defendant Company.
Facts germane to the present dispute
It is matter of record that a registered lease deed dated 22.03.2016 (‘lease deed’) was executed between the plaintiff and defendant Company for a period of nine (9) years starting from 01.06.2015 to 31.05.2024. The monthly rent reserved under the said lease deed is as under:
Rs.11,00,000/- + GST for the period of 01.12.2015 to 31.05.2018;
Rs.12,65,000/- + GST for the period of 01.06.2018 to 31.05.2021;
Rs.14,54,750/- + GST for the period 01.06.2021 to 31.05.2024.
The plaintiff herein vide final legal notice dated 29.10.2021 terminated the lease on account of persistent defaults by the defendant Company in paying the monthly reserved rent and as per the contents of the said legal notice a sum of Rs. 98,03,750/- was in arrears towards rent. The legal notice sought recovery of the arrears with interest and Goods and Service Tax (‘GST’), which had become due and payable as on the date of termination as well as called upon the defendant Company for vacant and peaceful possession within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice.
However, since the defendant Company had failed to handover the vacant possession of the leased property and pay arrears of rent, the plaintiff herein was constrained to institute the present suit on 09.12.2021 for possession as well as recovery of arrears of rent for the period 07.04.2021 to 31.11.2021, interest on arrears of rent, mesne profits and interest thereon.
Summons in the suit were issued on 15.12.2021 and the counsel for defendant Company herein duly entered appearance on 22.04.2022. It is an admitted fact that Mr. Vikram Handa authorized one Mr. Gaurav Bharti to engage an advocate and defend the present proceedings so as to resist the claims of the plaintiff. The defendant company failed to file its written statement within the statutory period and thereby forfeited its right to file a written statement as recorded in the order dated 12.12.2022. The defendant Company sought to resist this suit by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 09.01.2023.
Undeterred, the defendant Company continued to occupy the leased property during the pendency of this suit and carry on the business of running and operating the restaurant, without payment of rent. There was admitted default in payment of rent even as per the defendant Company as recorded in the order dated 30.05.2023 which reads as under:
“3.The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the defendant has not been paying rent since September 2022.
4.The learned counsel for the defendant, on the other hand, submits that the rent has not been paid for lack of proper invoices being raised by the plaintiff.
5.The learned counsel for the plaintiff, in turn, submits that the invoices could not be raised as the defendant is not ready and willing to pay the rent at the agreed rate as provided in the Lease Deed dated 22.03.2016.
6.Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, the plaintiff shall raise an invoice of the amount that it seeks to claim from the defendant. On such invoice being raised, the defendant shall pay the admitted rent to the plaintiff, including the arrears thereof, within a period of four weeks. Future rent shall also be paid by the seventh day of each calendar month on a proper invoice being raised by the plaintiff.
7.List on 21st August, 2023.”
(Emphasis supplied)
In view of the admitted default in payment of rent, the Court in I.A. No. 6618/2023 filed by the plaintiff for seeking summary judgment, directed the plaintiff to raise an invoice for the arrears of rent on the defendant Company and directed the defendant to clear the admitted arrears. Further, the Court directed the defendant Company to ensure that future rent (i.e., w.e.f. 01.04.2024) should be cleared by 07th day of calendar month.
In furtherance of the order dated 30.05.2023, the plaintiff on 06.06.2023 raised an invoice for the arrears of rent for the period from April, 2021 to May, 2023 as per the rent amount reserved under the lease deed. However, since the defendant Company failed to pay the amount as per the invoice raised, a CCP(O) 51/2023 was filed for non-compliance of the order dated 30.5.2023 and notice in the said CCP(O) was issued vide order dated 24.07.2023.
On 19.10.2023, Mr. Yuvraj Singh, learned counsel for defendant Company gave an undertaking to this Court that defendant Company shall abide by the order dated 30.05.2023. Mr. Yuvraj Singh, learned counsel, who is present in Court today reiterates the said fact and submits that he had made the said statement under instructions from Mr. Gaurav Bharti the person authorized by Mr. Vikram Handa. The displeasure expressed by the Court at the default is recorded in the said order which reads as under:
“1.Learned counsel for the defendant/contemnor submits that payments in terms of the invoices raised by the plaintiff were not made as the plaintiff had not taken into account some payments which have already been made by the defendant.
2.Even though this submission is denied by learned counsel for the plaintiff, this Court is unable to appreciate as to why the defendant/contemnor has not paid at least the admitted due amount after adjusting the amounts which are stated to have already been made to the plaintiff.
3.Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the intention of the defendant was always to abide by the orders passed by this Court on 30.05.2023. He submits that in order to reconcile the account a meeting with the plaintiff’s representative is necessary.
4.Learned counsel for the plaintiff assures the Court that in case the defendant requires the presence of the plaintiff’s representative in its office for this purpose, the plaintiff’s representative will have no objection to visit the defendant's office upon receipt of prior information in this regard. The said statement is taken on record and as prayed for defendant is granted further two weeks' time, by way of a last opportunity, to file a reply to the application. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date.
5.At request, list on 18.12.2023.”
(Emphasis supplied)
It is however a matter of record that defendant Company (without impunity) failed to make any payments towards rent qua the undertakings recorded in the order dated 30.05.2023 and 19.10.2023, while continuing to occupy the leased property and run the restaurant. This Court vide order dated 08.01.2024 directed the defendant Company to comply with its undertakings.
In this background of persistent defaults of defendant Company, when the matter was taken up on 28.02.2024, the defendant Company contended before this Court that the monthly rental rate should be calculated as Rs. 8,75,000/- P.M. and not Rs.14,54,750/- P.M. The Court on 28.02.2024 without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties directed the defendant Company vide order dated 28.02.2024 to pay the arrears of rent and the current rent, at the rate of Rs.8,75,000/- admitted by the defendant Company since, admittedly, the defendant Company was continuing to occupy the leased property despite termination under the aegis of the Court. The defendant Company made last part-payment towards rent in August, 2022. The order dated 28.02.2024 reads as under:
“$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 17/2023, CCP (O) 51/2023, 16516/2022, 6618/2023
CEPCO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, Adv. (M: 9811122114)
versus
TEWARI RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED .....Defendant
Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Walia and Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Advs. (M: 9871935220)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
O R D E R
% 28.02.2024
1.This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
I.A.16516/2022 (for deposit of arrears of rent) & 6618/2023 (for summary judgment)
2.The present application has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking deposit of more than Rs. 2 crores including arrears of rent, interest, occupational charges for the period of 1st December, 2021 to 30th September, 2022 etc.
3.The Court has seen the statement of account today, from which it appears that a substantial amount of payment is due and the Defendant continues to run the restaurant in a prime property in Connaught Place i.e., F-14 and F-15, F- Block, Inner Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110001.
4.Stand of the Defendant is that though the rent agreement mentions Rs.12,65,000/- for the period of 1st June, 2018 to 31st May, 2021, after an enhancements of rent it was Rs.14,54,750/- for the period of 1st June, 2021 to 31st May, 2024. The Plaintiff has been raising invoices at the rate of Rs.8,75,000/- per month. Admittedly, the last payment made of Rs.6,78,500/- was in August, 2022. Accordingly, the Defendant shall clear the entire outstanding @ Rs.8,75,000/- per month with the Plaintiff within a period of four weeks. The above shall be subject to the rights and contentions of the Plaintiff as the higher amount is due. If the amount is not paid, coercive measures would have to be directed by the Court.
CS(COMM) 17/2023, CCP(O) 51/2023
5.In order to calculate the amounts payable in terms of today’s order, let the parties and counsel in the Chamber No.116, Block-1, Delhi High Court. The parties shall be present personally in the meeting on 7th March, 2024 at 4:30 pm.
List before the Court on 7th May, 2024 at top of the Board.
It would be relevant to note here that since the defendant’s right to file written statement had been closed vide order dated 12.12.2022, the submissions of the defendant recorded vide order dated 28.02.2024 was not a defence otherwise available on record; however, the Court permitted the defendant Company to clear the admitted rent so as to balance the interest of the parties.
The defendant Company, however, remained delinquent and failed to make payment of arrears and current rent even at Rs.8,75,000/- per month as undertaken vide order dated 28.02.2024 and [finally] vacated the leased property on 13.04.2024. The possession of the premises had been received by the plaintiff on 13.04.2024.
However, the arrears of rent for the period from April, 2021 to November, 2021 prior to the institution of the suit and the arrears of rent for the period December, 2021 to April, 2024 which liability was incurred by the defendant Company during the pendency of the suit have not been paid by the defendant Company; though, defendant Company continued to use and enjoy the leased property and carry on business therein.
Arguments of parties
Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, learned counsel for the plaintiff states that even if the rent is calculated at Rs. 8.75,000/- P.M. for the period from April, 2021 to March, 2024, the plaintiff is currently entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 2,47,55,100/- towards the principal arrears plus interest. He relies upon a list of dates filed under cover of index dated 22.08.2024 which is taken on record.
He states that however if the arrears are calculated as per the rate of rent reserved under the lease deed, then the amount payable by defendant Company for the period from April, 2021 to March, 2024 would be Rs. 4,89,35,070/- as principal arrears plus interest.
He states that the plaintiff has [on 09.08.2024] received Rs.15,00,000/- from Mr. Vikram Handa in the Court proceedings.
He states that after filing of the suit an amount of approximately Rs. 68,00,000/- has been paid to the plaintiff in an adhoc manner between December, 2021 to August, 2022. He states that the details of the said payments have been placed on record. He, however, states that after September, 2022, no amount has been paid to the plaintiff. He states that the payments received have been duly accounted for whilst calculating the arrears.
Mr. Abhimanyu Walia, learned counsel for the defendant Company states that as on date, the defendant Company has a bank balance of Rs.603.21. He has handed over a copy of the bank statement of the account held with HDFC Bank. The said bank statement is taken on record.
He states that the defendant Company has no movable or immovable assets available for making payments to the plaintiff towards the arrears of rent.
He states that however, as on the date of the handover of the leased property valuable movable assets were lying in the leased property. He states that a full-fledged restraunt was being run from the said premises and the plaintiff ought to place a reasonable value on these movables assets even if the calculation/value offered by Mr. Vikram Handa is rejected.
Mr. Mayank Arora, learned counsel for Mr. Vikram Handa states that he adopts the submissions of the defendant Company. He states that before taking over the possession of the leased property the plaintiff ought to have made a fair assessment of the value of the movable assets being taken over and give an adjustment of the value of the movable assets from the arrears.
In response, Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the articles left behind in the leased property by defendant Company on the date of handover were junk and this is evidenced from the handover letter dated 13.04.2024 executed by the authorized representative of the defendant Company. He states that defendant Company’s right to file written statement has been closed and they cannot be permitted to overcome the said bar in law by pleading a set off or adjustment in the arrears of rent. He states that the alleged movable assets mentioned in the list relied upon by Mr. Vikram Handa were not left behind in the premises on the date of the handover.
Analysis and Findings
The issue that has arisen for consideration before this Court is the scope of the liability of Mr. Vikram Handa, Mr. Dev Kumar Arora and Mr. Noorul Arfeen towards the arrears of rent recoverable by the plaintiff from the defendant Company.
It is unequivocally admitted that Mr. Vikram Handa despite allegedly submitting his resignation on 13.06.2023 has continued to remain at the helm of the affairs and has been exclusively handling the affairs of the defendant Company till date. This is also evident from the admission that he solely operates the only bank account of the defendant Company held with HDFC Bank even as on date. The bank statement records Mr. Vikram Handa’s personal e-mail ID as the notified ID of the said bank account.
Mr. Vikram Handa along with his wife Mrs. Bhawana Handa are the only two (2) shareholders of the defendant Company. As per learned counsel for the defendant Company, Mr. Dev Kumar Arora and Mr. Noorul Arfeen are dummy directors and named lenders who do not play any active role in the functioning of the Company. Learned counsel for the defendant Company admits that the business of the Company is being run and managed by Mr. Vikram Handa till date. In these facts, the non-filing of DIR-12 by defendant Company with the ROC to report the resignation of Mr. Vikram Handa is clearly intentional and at the behest of Mr. Vikram Handa himself. Thus, since DIR-12 has not been uploaded, it would lead to the conclusion that Mr. Vikram Handa has not resigned as a Director, his resignation has not been accepted by the defendant Company and he continues to remain as a Director. The fact that Mr. Vikram Handa continues to operate the bank account of defendant Company which was opened on 23.07.2018 till date are all indicative of the said fact of his continuing directorship. The statement of Mr. Nikhil Arora, Chartered Accountant recorded today also evidences the extent of the dominant participation of Mr. Vikram Handa in the affairs of the defendant Company.
The first order directing the defendant Company to clear the arrears of rent was issued by this Court vide order dated 30.05.2023 and therefore, the subterfuge of resignation on 13.06.2023 created by Mr. Vikram Handa deserves to be rejected.
The plaintiff herein had duly served the defendant Company with a final notice terminating the lease on 29.10.2021 calling upon them to vacate the leased property within thirty (30) days. However, the defendant Company despite service of the termination notice and thereafter, despite accepting the summons in this suit on 22.04.2022 continued to occupy and enjoy the leased property.
It is now apparent that Mr. Vikram Handa, Mr. Dev Kumar Arora and Mr. Noorul Arfeen despite being conscious about defendant Company’s inability to pay rent reserved per the lease deed decided to continue occupying the leased property and carrying on the restaurant business.
The plaintiff approached this Court on 09.12.2021 to seek orders of eviction against the defendant Company. Under the lease deed the defendant Company was entitled to remain in possession until 31.05.2024 on payment of rent, however, the defendant Company relying upon the registered lease deed dated 22.03.2016 resisted the orders of eviction and sought to perpetuate its occupation of the leased property under the aegis of this Court.
The defendant Company represented to the Court that it had bona fide dispute on the quantum of arrears of rent and represented that the non-payment of the arrears was on the basis of genuine disputes. The defendant Company undertook to pay the admitted rent for the continued occupation at Rs. 8,75,000 P.M. However, in view of the admission made today before this Court that the defendant Company has no funds to pay towards this admitted liability towards rent contracted during the pendency of the proceedings, shows that Mr. Vikram Handa, Mr. Dev Kumar Arora and Mr. Noorul Arfeen despite being aware about the inability of the defendant Company continued to misrepresent before this Court its financial abilities.
The defence raised by Mr. Vikram Handa with respect to valuation of the movable assets lying at the leased property was considered and found to be unpersuasive by this Court in its order dated 09.08.2024. The lack of bona fide of the said defence has been further proved by the bogus nature of the certificate dated 08.08.2024 placed on record by Mr. Vikram Handa. In this regard, the statement of Mr. Nikhil Arora, Chartered Accountant has been considered and this Court is of the opinion that a bogus list of movable assets has been sought to be placed on record to create a moonshine defence to the admitted liability of arrears of rent. This Court agrees with the submission of the plaintiff that defendant Company and Mr. Vikram Handa have raised this defence as an afterthought and moreover since their right to file the written statement has been closed, they are precluded from raising this defence.
In these facts, this Court is of the opinion that Mr. Vikram Handa, Mr. Dev Kumar Arora, and Mr. Noorul Arfeen, the directors of the defendant Company, by continuing to carry on restaurant business from the leased property after termination of lease deed vide final legal notice dated 29.10.2021 have become personally liable for the rent which has become due and payable.
The continuation of occupation of the leased property despite having knowledge of their financial inability to pay rent as per lease deed amounts to fraud on the plaintiff as well as this Court. When the Court on 30.05.2023 accepted the plea of the defendant Company to enable it to clear the past arrears and pay future rent, the Court was led to believe by Directors of defendant Company that it had the wherewithal to meet the financial liabilities. So also, when a tenant continues to occupy the tenanted premises during the pendency of the litigation, he/she does so under the protective orders of the Court and there is a presumption that the tenant would remain at all times capable of meeting its liabilities incurred due to the said protective orders of Court.
This Court reasonably expects that a diligent and responsible individual who is acting as a Director of a Company would upon receiving a notice of termination of lease surrender the possession of the premises if he/she was of the opinion that the company does not have the wherewithal to continue to pay the rent. This responsibility of the Director amplifies when the matter is filed in Court and continuing as a tenant thereafter is at sufferance and only due to the aegis of the Court. The legal principle of due process of law to be followed by landlord for recovering the possession cannot be abused by a tenant who is conscious of its financial inability to meet rental obligations.
The Directors of the defendant Company on 30.05.2023, 19.10.2023 and 28.02.2024 categorically led the Court to believe that they will remit arrears of rent and current rent to the plaintiff. However, today after having uninterruptedly used the leased property for running the restaurant business under the protective orders of the Court, the said Directors have now raised their hands and are claiming financial inability to pay the admitted debt towards arrears of rent. In these facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the corporate veil of defendant Company has been used by its Directors to defraud the plaintiff and the Court. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case of lifting of corporate veil, which already stands pierced by the willful and fraudulent acts and omissions of the Directors of the defendant Company.
The Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd.1 held that the idea behind creation of a ‘Corporate body or a Company’ was essentially to foster business and not to transgress the law or deceive people. Therefore, in the eventuality wherein the corporate character is used to commit fraud or deceive others, the Court will disregard the corporate character of a Company and consider the reality behind the corporate veil.
Similarly, the Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Rai Saluja & Anr. v. Air India Limited & Ors.2 while discussing the circumstance in which acts and defaults of the Company will be attributed to the person in control of the said Company held as under:
70.The doctrine of “piercing the corporate veil” stands as an exception to the principle that a company is a legal entity separate and distinct from its shareholders with its own legal rights and obligations. It seeks to disregard the separate personality of the company and attribute the acts of the company to those who are allegedly in direct control of its operation…. …..
74.Thus, on relying upon the aforesaid decisions, the doctrine of piercing the veil allows the court to disregard the separate legal personality of a company and impose liability upon the persons exercising real control over the said company. However, this principle has been and should be applied in a restrictive manner, that is, only in scenarios wherein it is evident that the company was a mere camouflage or sham deliberately created by the persons exercising control over the said company for the purpose of avoiding liability. The intent of piercing the veil must be such that would seek to remedy a wrong done by the persons controlling the company. The application would thus depend upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.”
(Emphasis supplied)
A coordinate bench of this Court in Abhinav Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. Uppal Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. 3 dealt with a case wherein the Judgment Debtor Company was not paying the amount agreed by them to be paid as per the settlement agreement. The Court therein held as under:
“13.It is settled law that order of the Court should be obeyed by the parties and willful disobedience of an order of the Court is punishable as a contempt of court. In the present case, from time to time the Court has adopted all the modes to get the decretal amount in favour of the decree holder. However, the judgment debtor is bend upon not to make the payment and making all clever attempts to avoid the same. As a matter of fact, after signing the settlement agreement before the mediation center, it is a breach of undertaking and statement made by the director of the judgment debtor. It is the duty of the Court, as a policy, to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrong-doing. The judgment debtor in the present case under no circumstances can be allowed to play the tactics with the Court. In case the judgment debtor, who is in connivance with its related company, is allowed to go escape free from its obligations and liabilities, then the faith of poor litigants, who used to settle their disputes before Mediation Centre, would be lost (Emphasis supplied)
In these facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that Mr. Vikram Handa, Mr. Dev Kumar Arora and Mr. Noorul Arfeen have become personally liable and accordingly this Court exercising its power under Order I Rule 10 of CPC impleads Mr. Vikram Handa, Mr. Dev Kumar Arora and Mr. Noorul Arfeen as defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the present suit. They are even otherwise a necessary party in view of CCP (O) 51/2023.
Mr. Dev Kumar Arora and Mr. Noorul Arfeen are admittedly the Directors of the defendant Company and their decision to be appointed as dummy directors or merely named lenders would not absolve them from being liable towards the debt contracted by the defendant Company during the pendency of these proceedings.
The newly impleaded defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 are directed to file with affidavit the list of all their bank accounts, list of movable and immovable assets within two (2) weeks i.e., on or before 05.09.2024. defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 are hereby restrained from transferring or creating third-party rights in any of the movable and immovable assets. defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 are restrained from operating their respective bank accounts in excess of Rs. 25,000/- per month until the arrears of the plaintiff to the extent of Rs. 2.47 Crores towards principal arrears of rent which is based at the rate of Rs.8.75 lacs admitted by the defendant Company is paid off.
The defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 along with the above-said affidavit will also file their statement of accounts w.e.f. 01.08.2024 till 03.09.2024 so that it can be examined that no debit after the passing of this order has been made in these accounts.
It is further clarified, to avoid any ambiguity to the parties that the sole proprietorship firms, i.e., Balaji Construction operated by Mr. Vikram Handa and Dev Electricals Appliances, operated by Mr. Dev Kumar Arora are their proprietorship firms and therefore the said defendants will not operate the bank accounts of those proprietorship firms and the details of the said bank accounts will also be filed on record. The defendant nos. 2 to 4 are restrained from converting these firms into partnership firms or diverting the business of these firms to any other entity.
Learned counsel for Mr. Vikram Handa has handed over a Cheque in the name of plaintiff CEPCO Industries Pvt. Ltd. bearing No. 002620 dated 20.09.2024 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Nirman Bhavan Branch for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the plaintiff today during the course of the hearing. It is further submitted that the said cheque will be honored on presentation with respect to the orders passed today. The bank is directed to clear the said cheque and the order of restraint passed today will not be applicable to this cheque.
As per the information available on record, Mr. Vikram Handa is the proprietor of bank account no. 26030200000087 held with Bank of Baroda, Nirman Bhavan Branch. He holds account no. 52510329345 with Standard Chartered Bank having IFSC Code SCBL0036001. He also holds accounts with HDFC Bank and State Bank of India as is apparent from his ITR, however, the details of the bank accounts are unavailable. The concerned Bank Managers of the accounts are directed to put an immediate debit freeze on the said accounts in accordance with the directions passed in this order. The plaintiff will be at liberty to serve a copy of this order on the said banks.
The ROC is directed to reject and take off the DIR-11 filed by Mr. Vikram Handa vide service request dated 27.07.2023 through SRN No. AA3654839 from its record.
The plaintiff is directed to file amended memo of parties within one (1) week.
List on 01.10.2024.
The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as a certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of order shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.