AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok Bhushan, J.
I.A. No.1151 of 2026 has been filed by the Applicant/ Appellant – Shubh Gautam (hereinafter referred to as the “Lender”) praying for following reliefs:
“a)Record and hold that a legally enforceable decretal amount exists in favour of the Respondent arising out of the final decree dated 11.01.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi;
b)Record and quantify the decretal amount payable by the Appellant at Rs. 12,51,18,074.49/- as on 28.02.2026, as reflected in Annexure-A-6, computed strictly in terms of the decree and after adjustment of all post-decree deposits;
c)Pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and render justice.”
The above application has been filed by the Lender in pursuance of the order dated 02.02.2026 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.(s) 8247 of 2022 in Anjani Technoplast Ltd. vs. Shubh Gautam. Anjani Technoplast Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Company”). The Company has filed the above Appeal in the Hon’ble Supreme Court assailing the order of this Tribunal dated 01.11.2022 passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.904 of 2022 – Shubh Gautam vs. Anjani Technoplast Ltd., by which order this Tribunal has set aside the order of the NCLT dated 20.06.2022 rejecting Section 7 application filed by Shubh Gautam, Lender.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent – Anjani Technoplast Ltd., Company has filed Annexures compilation. Both the parties have also filed short notes of submission in support of their respective claims. The order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 02.02.2026 passed in Civil Appeal No.8247 of 2022 is as follows:
“1.There is a serious contest about the existence of debt. While it is contended by Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, that no amount is payable, learned Cansel for the respondent states that nothing of the decretal amount has been paid at all.
2.Pending disposal of this appeal, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal [NCLAT] shall examine the issue of existence of debt and pass an order so as to enable this Court to consider if the dispute can be settled. The Tribunal may pass the order within four weeks from today.
3.The parties are at liberty to mention this appeal for listing immediately thereafter.”
In the above order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has noticed that there is serious contest about the existence of debt between the parties. Learned Counsel for the Respondent in the above context has referred to two earlier orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above Appeal. Reference has been made to the order dated 18.10.2024 where it was stated on behalf of the Company that amount of Rs.3 crores has already been deposited in the High Court and the Company is ready and willing to deposit the balance decretal amount payable till date, in terms of the decree dated 11.01.2018. The order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 18.10.2024 is as follows:
“It is stated on behalf of the appellant, Anjani Technoplast Ltd., that 3 crores have already been deposited in the High Court and that the appellant is ready and willing to deposit the balance decretal amount payable till date, in terms of the decree dated 11.01.2018. The balance amount, along with the computation decreed by the High Court, will be deposited by the appellant before the High Court within a period of six weeks from today.
A copy of the said computation along with proof of payment will be furnished to the learned counsel for the respondent, Shubh Gautam.
Re-list in the week commencing 13.01.2025.”
On 11.02.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court noticing the calculation of amount on behalf of Lender passed following order:
“Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent has handed over a detailed calculation chart depicting the total amount payable and, according to them, the balance amount payable is presently more than ₹11 crores.
Let the appellant examine the aforesaid calculation chart and report by filing an alternative chart, in case it disputes the figures given in the said chart. The alternative chart, if any, shall be filed within seven days from today with an advance copy to the other side.
Re-list in the week commencing 17.03.2025.”
Before we proceed to consider the application filed by Lender, we need to notice certain background facts and sequence of events with respect to dispute between the parties.
The Lender – Shubh Gautam is a money lender, who has on 24.02.2010 gave a loan of Rs.2.50 crores for a period of two months with interest @ 12.75% payable on half-yearly basis. The Loan Agreement also provided that in default of payment, the Lender shall be entitled and Borrower shall be liable to pay interest mentioned in the loan. On 31.03.2010 another loan of Rs.2 crores for a period of fifteen days was taken with interest @3% per month, payable on half-yearly basis. The Company had given cheques as security.
On dishonouring of cheques the Lender filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Delhi. In the complaint, a Compromise Deed was entered between the parties on 31.08.2013, where Company agreed to pay an amount of Rs.3,22,02,660/- within 12 months. The compromise also acknowledged that Company till 31.07.2014 has made payment of Rs.3,53,51,520/-.
Lender filed a Summary Suit CS (OS) 66/2016 under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for Decree of an amount of Rs.4,38,00,617/- with pendente lite and future interest @24% per annum. In the Summary Suit a Compromise Deed dated 23.12.2016 was entered in continuation of earlier compromise dated 31.08.2013, where, Company agreed to pay an amount of Rs.2,38,61,907/- as full and final settlement against all claims by means of two cheques. The cheques given were not honoured, learned single Judge Delhi High Court vide judgment dated 11.01.2018 passed a Decree for a sum of Rs. 4,38,00,617/- along with interest @ 24% per annum from 01.02.2016. The Decree order also directed for deduction of Rs.25 lakhs, which was paid to the Plaintiff on 06.01.2018 and a cost of Rs.5 lakhs was also imposed. The Company filed an Appeal – RFA (OS) 48/2018 before the Division Bench, which also came to be dismissed on 27.07.2018 with cost of Rs.25,000/-.
Lender filed a Section 7 petition being Company Petition No.(IB)-766(ND/2021 before the NCLT, New Delhi Bench-IV alleging financial debt as owed to the Company, which is in default. The NCLT by order dated 20.06.2022 dismissed Section 7 petition. The Company had also filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 22264/2021 challenging the Division Bench order of Delhi High Court dated 27.07.2018, which came to be dismissed on 22.10.2021.
With respect to Assessment Year 2012-13, a demand was raised on the Lender on account of TDS deposited by the Company of Rs.9,22,855/-towards the interest given to Lender. The Lender file an Appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax objecting to demand. The Commissioner of Income Tax dismissed the Appeal filed by the Lender on 21.09.2020 assessing the interest income on the strength of TDS deposited by the Company. The Appellant filed an Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”), where the Lender with respect to dues of Company, pleaded that Company having failed to repay the principal amount, there was no question of booking of interest income of Rs.92,28,545/-. Before the ITAT, it was also pleaded by the Lender that amount due on M/s Anjani Technoplast Ltd. is Rs.96,48,480/-. The ITAT partially allowed the Appeal, adding the income with respect to Rs.9,22,855/-, which was the TDS deposited by the Company.
The Company after coming to know about the Income Tax proceedings has filed an IA No.17634/2022 before the Delhi High Court in CS(OS) 66/2016 praying for various reliefs. It was also pleaded by the Applicant that that decree holder is not giving the details of computation/calculations, which are due and payable by judgment debtor. The order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax was also referred to in the application. Learned Single Judge also noticed the statement of judgment debtor that judgment debtor undertakes to pay full amounts, which are due and payable to decree holder. The Delhi High Court by order dated 31.10.2022 passed in IA No.17634/2022 directed the judgment debtor to pay all amounts due and payable to the decree holder in terms of decree dated 11.01.2018. The decree holder was also directed to file computation of calculation of amount. The judgment debtor undertook to deposit amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.3 crores within 10 days. The judgment debtor deposited amount of Rs.3 crores. The Lender filed an Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in IA No.17634 of 2022 being Special Leave Petition No.21131-21132, which petition filed by the Lender was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 28.11.2022.
In the above background of facts and circumstances in the Civil Appeal No.8247 of 2022, both the parties have filed different calculations claiming the amount due. As noted in the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 11.02.2025, the claim of the Lender was that presently an amount of more than Rs.11 crores is due. The decree holder on the other hand after the order dated 18.10.2024 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as noted above, filed a compliance affidavit and computation chart as Annexure-C, where the judgment debtor stated that balance decreed amount as per computation sheet was Rs.60,98,847/-, which has been deposited with Demand Draft dated 29.11.2024 before the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court. In the compliance affidavit it is submitted by the judgment debtor that amount of Rs.1,27,91,843/-, which was paid by the Company to the Lender was not appropriated. The judgment debtor claimed that computation as claimed by the decree holder is already challenged before the Delhi High Court in IA No.17634/2022 in which orders have been passed by the Delhi High Court. It was also pleaded that the Company was not aware of the income tax proceedings against the Lender with respect to interest income from the Company and the amount of TDS deducted and deposited by the Company was not even reflected by the Lender. It is pleaded that there was specific pleading by Lender before the ITAT that amount due against the Company was only Rs.96,48,480/-. On the other hand, the Lender in this application has filed a statement of decreed amount as per the decree dated 11.01.2018 and as per the above chart till 28.02.2026 an amount of Rs.12,51,18,074/- is due
From the materials brough on record by both the parties, which were also placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as has been noticed above, the dispute between the parties, which has surfaced before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is about the respective computations by both the parties on the basis of decree of Delhi High Court dated 11.01.2018. Learned Counsel for the Lender submitted that decree dated 11.01.2018 passed by Delhi High Court in Summary Suit filed by the Lender have become final. The Appeal before the Division Bench have been dismissed and SLP has also been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Company cannot be heard in disputing the amount against the decree, which has become final between the parties.
Learned Counsel for the Lender contended that the computation of chart, which has been filed by the decree holder has adjusted the amount of Rs.25,00,000/- as was directed by the decree dated 11.01.2018 and the amount of Rs.3 crores deposited on 02.11.2022; amount of Rs.60,98,847 on 17.02.2025. It is submitted that the Company is endeavouring to rely on the proceeding under the income tax, which has no relevance. The Company is also trying to get adjustment of certain amount, which according to Company has not been reflected by the Lender, which issues have become final after passing of the decree on 11.01.2018. It is submitted that application filed by Company before the learned Single Judge being IA No.17634 of 2022 is not maintainable, nor the decree has been stayed or modified by the Delhi High Court.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Company submitted that Company is not making any averments against the decree dated 11.01.2018. It is, however, submitted that Company after coming to know that there was suppression of facts and concealment by the Lender in Summary Suit in obtaining the Decree, an IA has been filed before the Delhi High Court being IA No.17634/2022, in which IA, the judgment debtor has undertaken to pay the entire amount due under the decree and hence, deposited the amount of Rs.3 crores immediately after order dated 31.10.2022 and balance amount of Rs.60 lakhs as per calculation of the Company. It is submitted in the proceedings before Income Tax Authorities, specially before ITAT, the Lender has pleaded before the ITAT that amount due on the Company was only Rs.96,48,480/-. When the Lender has taken a stand before the ITAT and mentioned the figure of amount due against the Company, it could not have different amount in the Summary Suit. When the amount of only Rs.96,48,480/- was due at the end of 31.03.2012, claiming of interest by Lender of amount of Rs.1.05 crores regularly for each year, which is reflected in the chart given by the Lender is incorrect. In the chart, which has been submitted by the Lender, every year an amount of Rs.1,05,12,148/- have been mentioned as interest, which interest according to the Lender is on same amount, i.e. Rs.4,38,00,617/- crores. Several amounts paid by the Company, have not been reflected and the whole basis and calculation by the Lender being fraudulent and full of suppression, the Company had to file an application IA No.17634/2022, which has been entertained and is still pending. It is submitted that on account of suppression an application under Section 340 CrPC before the Delhi High Court, wherein notice has been issued.
We have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the records.
With respect to rival claim of both the parties relying on respective computation chart regarding the amount due on the Company in favour of the Lender, learned Counsel for the Company has submitted at the very outset that submissions made by Respondent are not in any manner questioning the decree dated 11.01.2018 passed by Delhi High Court in Summary Suit. The submissions, which have been advanced by Respondent is to point out their own calculation of amounts paid by them and the action of Lender in not reflecting various payments made by the Company to the lender and taking contradictory stand before the Income Tax Authorities and before the Delhi High Court. We have noticed above that after the Decree dated 11.01.2018, which was affirmed by the Division Bench on 27.07.2018 as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP on 22.10.2021, an application under Section 151 CPC has been filed by the Company before the Delhi High Court in Summary Suit proceedings, i.e. CS(OS)66/2016. The copy of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 31.10.2022 has been placed on record by Company. It is useful to notice certain paragraphs of the order dated 31.10.2022. Learned Single Judge in its order dated 31.10.2022 has noted the details of all litigations between the parties, including the Compromise Deeds. The averments made by the judgment debtor has been noticed by the learned Single Judge in Paragraphs-9 and 10, which are as follows:
“9.It is submitted that applicant/judgment debtor is a running company, which is a fully solvent company with 95 serving full time employees. It is submitted that judgment debtor had booked total revenue of approximately Rs. 35 crores in the last financial year i.e. 2021-22 with profit of Rs. 8 crores. However, decree holder instead of filing an execution petition for purposes of recovering moneys which are due and payable to it, has initiated proceedings under Section 7 of IBC in a mischievous manner.
10.Learned senior counsel appearing for applicant/judgment debtor submits that judgment debtor undertakes to pay full amounts which are due and payable to decree holder. However, he submits that decree holder has not given any detailed calculations as to amounts which are due and payable to decree holder. Further, he submits that when tranche of Rs. 92,28,545/- was paid by judgment debtor to decree holder, the said amount was neither reflected in books of accounts by decree holder nor was accounted for in Income Tax Returns for said year. This is despite the fact that judgment debtor had not only deducted TDS for the said amount but had also deposited said amount with Income tax authorities. Thus, he submits that though an approximate amount of Rs. 4.12 crores already stands paid by judgment debtor to decree holder, however, decree holder has not given proper computation of amounts payable by judgment debtor. Thus, learned senior counsel submits that judgment debtor has not been able to honor its liability in absence of clear calculations given on behalf of decree holder.”
The learned Single Judge after noticing the submissions of the parties and decree passed in Summary Suit and order of the Division Bench, in Paragraph 18 to 21 observed following:
“18.Considering the undertaking given by judgment debtor today before this Court that it shall pay all amounts due and payable to the decree holder in terms of decree dated 11.01.2018, direction is issued to decree holder to file computation of calculation of amounts which are still due and payable by judgment debtor in terms of decree dated 11.01.2018 after showing adjustments of all amounts which have already been paid by judgment debtor.
19.Let affidavit be filed by decree holder within a period of two weeks from today.
20.In order to show his bonafide, learned senior counsel on instructions undertakes that judgment debtor shall deposit cost levied by this Court to tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- along with cost of Rs. 25,000/- and a further amount of Rs. 3 crores with Registrar General of this Court within a period of 10 days from today. The said amounts, deposited by judgment debtor shall be kept in an interest bearing account.
21.After affidavit is filed by decree holder in terms of order passed today, decree holder will be at liberty to move an application before this Court praying for release of aforesaid amounts so deposited by judgment debtor with the Registrar General of this Court.”
We have noted that after the judgment of learned Single Judge on 31.10.2022, an amount of Rs.3 crores was deposited immediately on 02.11.2022 and after order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 18.10.2024, the judgment debtor has deposited an amount of Rs.60,98,847/- by Bank Draft dated 29.11.2024.
We need to first notice the objections raised by learned Counsel for the Lender with respect to orders of Income Tax Authorities, which have been relied by learned Counsel for the Company and were also filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court along with compliance affidavit of the Company dated 28.11.2024. We may first examine as to whether proceedings of Income Tax Act has any relevance with regard to dispute of the amount between the parties. The order of Commissioner of Income Tax dated 21.09.2020 has been relied, in which proceedings a demand was raised against the Lender by adding interest income on the basis of TDS deposited by the Company of Rs.9,22,855/- on the interest income of the Lender. Before the Commissioner of Income Tax, it is clear from the order, that Lender pleaded that there is default in payment of principal amount and which amount was also doubtful of recovery. Hence, there cannot be any interest that could be said to be accrued on the amount. The Appeal was however dismissed, against which order the Lender filed an Appeal before ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) with respect to Assessment Year 2012-13. The ITAT allowed the Appeal by its order dated 01.09.2022, which order is on the record. The ITAT has noted the case of the Lender. The Lender before the ITAT has placed the chart regarding balance amount due from Anjani Technoplast Ltd. It is useful to notice Paragraphs-5 and 6 of the judgment, which are as follows:
“5.Whereas the case of the assessee is that M/s. Anjani Technoplast Ltd. has failed to repay even the principal amount and litigation is pending and there was no likelihood of receiving any payment of principal or interest amount from M/s. Anjani Technoplast Ltd., therefore, there was no question of booking of interest income of Rs.92,28,545/-. That’s merely because M/s. Anjani Technoplast Ltd., deposited TDS amounting to Rs.9,22,855/-, does not mean that the interest income of Rs.92,28,545/- has accrued to the assessee. It has been pleaded that in view of the aforesaid facts, only the real income of the assessee can be taxed and since the litigation is going on with M/s. Anjani Technoplast Ltd., therefore, the addition of Rs.92,28,545/-into the income of the assessee on accrual basis is not justified.
It has been further pleaded that the company M/s. Sriram Compounds Pvt. Ltd., in which the assessee is a Director was having some credit balance of M/s. Anjani Technoplast Ltd., in respect of purchases made, in its books of accounts. It was mutually agreed that the assessee's credits for M/s. Anjani Technoplast Ltd. will be adjusted against the credit balances of M/s. Anjani Technoplast Ltd. in the books of M/s. Sriram Compounds Pvt. Ltd. The assessee in this respect has placed on record the following chart:-
Sl. No. Date of events Particulars Amount (in Rs.) Amount (in Rs.) 1 24-02-2010 Loan given by the appellant to Anjani Technoplast 2,50,00,000 2 31-03-2010 Loan given by the appellant to Anjani Technoplast 2,00,00,000 4,50,00,000 3 29-04-2010 Less: receipt of the loan money from Anjani Technoplast (60,257)
vide cheques no.819834 4 29-04-2010 Less: receipt of the loan money from Anjani Technoplast vide cheques no.819833 (4,63,716) 5 30-04-2010 Less: receipt of the loan money from Anjani Technoplast vide cheques no.819838 (3,00,000) (8,23,793) 6 31-03-2011 Credit balance of Anjani Technoplast transferred to the appellant by Sriram Compounds 1,19,67,870 7 31-03-2012 Credit balance of Anjani Technoplast transferred to the appellant by Sriram Compounds 3,22,08,157 4,41,76,027 8 20-11-2010 To 31-03-2012 Adjustment of Purchase of raw materials from Anjani Technoplast by Sriram Compounds Pvt. Ltd. (3,45,27,547) Balance amount due from Anjani Technoplast by the appellant 96,48,480 6.Placing reliance on the aforesaid chart, it has been pleaded that even otherwise, only the amount which was outstanding against M/s. Anjani Technoplast Ltd. was Rs.96,48,480/-. In a nutshell, the pleading of the assessee is that only amount which the assessee has received on account of interest from M/s Anjani Technoplast Ltd. during the assessment year under consideration is the amount deposited as TDS of Rs.9,22,855/-. That, neither any other amount has been received by the assessee nor any other income has accrued for which any addition could have been made by the Assessing Officer.”
There is categorical case of the Lender before the ITAT that amount due against the Company is Rs.96,48,480/- No explanation has come on behalf of the Lender to explain the case setup by the Lender before the ITAT except that such orders are not relevant in these proceedings. When the Company is claiming that various payments made by Company are not reflected and specific amount of Rs.1,27,91,843/- is pleaded in the compliance affidavit filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court after order dated 18.10.2024. It is an admitted fact between the parties that an amount of Rs.3.53 crores was already received by the Lender, which is reflected in the Settlement dated 31.08.2013. In the computation chart, which has been filed by the Lender, claiming an amount of more than Rs.11 crores as noticed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and more than Rs.12 crores as claimed before us, the chart indicate that every year same amount of Rs.1,05,12,148/- have been added with effect from 01.02.2017. As noted above the judgment debtor is also not complaining against the decree dated 11.01.2018, but submits that the amounts claimed in the Summary Suit do not reflect the payments already made. We have noticed that after the decree passed in the suit, learned Single Judge has entertained the application filed by the Company, where before the High Court the Company has undertaken to pay the entire amount and has already deposit Rs.3 crores. Learned Single Judge has not passed any final order in the IA, which was filed by the Company in the Summary Suit. The submissions, which have been made by the learned Counsel for the Company before us regarding the quantum of amount as claimed by the Company, cannot be held to be without substance.
From the materials brought on record by both the parties and the respective submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, we arrive on following conclusions:
In the summary suit filed by Lender in Delhi High Court, various payments made by Company as detailed in Chart C (filed by Company in compliance affidavit in pursuance of order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 18.10.2024) were not taken into Account.
The Lender in proceedings initiated by Income Tax Authorities has been held not reflecting the interest income for Assessment Year 2012-13 with regard to which TDS was deducted by the Company and deposited in the Form 26AS.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.555/KOL/2020, filed by Lender, in its judgment dated 01.09.2022 has extracted the calculations given by Lender regarding outstanding amount against the Company as on 31.03.2012, which was only Rs.96,48,480/-, the amount claimed by Lender in Summary Suit No.66/2016 of Rs.4,38,00,617/- is contrary to own case set by Lender before ITAT.
The proceedings before the Income Tax Authorities which relate to Assessment Year 2012-13 i.e. after date of loan and decided on 01.09.2022, after judgment dated 11.01.2018 of Delhi High Court, are relevant and can be looked into.
The IA No.17634/22 has been filed by Company in CS(OS) 66 of 2016 under Section 151, in which proceeding Delhi High Court has taken note of Income Tax Proceedings. The entertaining of Section 151 C.P.C. Application by Delhi High Court with respect to decree of Summary Suit dates 11.01.2018, prima facie caste a doubt on the amount claimed in Summary Suit which may be finally determined by Delhi High Court in the said proceedings.
The calculation chart given by Lender of outstanding amount of Rs.12,51,18,074 as on 28.02.2026 is calculations as per decree dated 11.01.2018, to accept the same is to disregard the above observations (1 to 5).
Both the parties may place this order before Hon’ble Supreme Court as per order dated 02.02.2026 passed in Civil Appeal No.8247 of 2022.