RAKESH KUMAR PAUL vs SIDHARTHA BUILDHOME PRIVATE LIMITED

Matter is adjourned to 07.08.2024.

Matter is adjourned to 29.05.2024.

Matter is adjourned to 04.04.2024.

Matter is adjourned to 13.03.2024.

MATTER IS ADJOURNED TO 19.02.2024.

MATTER IS ADJOURNED TO 12.12.2023.

Matter is adjourned to 11.10.2023.

Though the matter was fixed for presence of judgment-debtor but it is not disputed that IRP was appointed and the matter is pending before the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi. So, in view of pending  of the matter before that authority, the decree-holder is directed to file his claim before the IRP if it is so advised and the matter is adjourned sine-die. So, in view of factual position, it is  ordered to adjourned  the complaint  sine die and the same shall be taken up as and when an application for taking the same is moved. 2.          File be consigned to the Registry.

No report with regard to presence of respondent/Judgment debtor has been received. Even there is nothing on record to show that any process for presence of judgment debtor has been issued by the office. Let an explanation of the concerned Legal Assistant be called and the same be put up on the date fixed for proceeding further. 2.        Mr. H.K. P. Sinha, AR of the respondent placed on record a medical certificate dated 27.02.2021 issued by Dr. Praveen Gupta of Forties Memorial Research Institute, Gurugram showing the admission of Mr. Siddharth Chauhan with the Institute on 06.12.2020 and he being advised rest for 7 days. There is nothing on record that he is now medically indisposed and is unable to appear before this forum. So, a request made on behalf of judgement debtor for adjourning the matter for his presence is declined. 3.         Let previous order be complied with before 06.04.2021.      4.         Fresh process be issued against the judgment debtor for that date.

No responsible person from the judgment-debtor company is present. 2.        On the previous date Mr. H.K.P. Sinha, AR for the respondent was present and through whom it was directed that the authorized person of the company would put in appearance and make a statement with regard to payment of decretal amount. Now, Mr. H.K.P. Sinha, AR has come up with the plea that none of the Director of the company is available and are out of station. If that is the position then he should have stated these facts on the previous date when the matter was posted for today. It shows that the judgment-debtor is in habit of seeking adjournment on the one pretext or the other. 3.       Even the decree holder filed an application for issuance of non-bailable warrants of the judgment-debtor though its Managing Director Mr. Sidharth Chauhan and his detention as he has failed to pay the amount due. 4.        A perusal of the case file shows that a sum of Rs. 77,80,741/- is due against the judgment-debtor and it failed to pay the same despite passage of more than a year. Even on 10.02.2020, the judgment-debtor offered to pay a sum of Rs. 25, 00,000/- on or before 28.02.2020. But despite that neither the judgment-debtor complied with that order nor offered to pay the amount. So, in such a situation there is no alternative but to secure the presence on judgment-debtor through its M.D Mr. Sidharth Chauhan, by way of issuance of non-bailable warrants. Let warrants for securing his presence be issued in order to recover a sum of Rs. 77,80,741/- through Commissioner of Police, Gurugram for 03.03.2021. 5.         A note be also given in the warrants that in case the judgment-debtor pays that amount on or before the date fixed then, he will be released. 6.       Let the case file be put up on 03.03.2021 before this forum further proceedings.

In pursuance to notice, both the parties put in appearance though their respective counsel. 2.          It is stated on behalf of the respondent that the  respondent-company wants to settle the matter. If that is so, some responsible person is directed through authorized representative of the company to put in appearance on 15.02.2021 at 2:00 PM and failing which his presence would be secured by following   the due process of law.

Case file taken up today as 25.01.2021, has been declared holiday by the Hon’ble Authority. Hence, the case is adjourned to 12.02.2021 for the proceedings already fixed.2. Both the parties be informed accordingly.

THE MATTER IS ADJOURNED TO 25.01.2021

None is present on behalf of the JD and the case is being taken up today in view of the Covid-19. So, let notice for the presence of the JD/counsel be issued for 28.10.2020.

DUE TO COVID-19 PANDEMIC, THE MATTER IS ADJOURNED TO 01.10.2020

DUE TO LOCKDOWN, THE MATTER IS ADJOURNED TO 10.08.2020

DUE TO LOCKDOWN, THE MATTER IS ADJOURNED TO 15.05.2020

Case file Case file taken up today as 09.03.2020 was declared holiday. 2. None is present on behalf of decree holder. Let court notice be issued for his presence through mail.3. Earlier in the day, Mr. Dharam Chand Yadav, director of the jd/respondent put in appearance and was asked to make a statement. But now he is also not present. It is stated by Mr. HKP Sinha, AR that he is a dummy director and has no authority to make statement. The other director, namely, Mr. Siddharth Chauhan is indisposed and has been advised bed rest by Forties, Gurugram as per medical certificate dated 24.02.2020. Without going into its authenticity and the statement made by Mr. HKP Singh, AR of the JD /respondent, the director of the JD/respondent Mr Siddharth Chauhan is directed to put in appearance on 25.03.2020 to make a statement with regard to the assets of the company and failing which there would be no alternative but to secure his presence by issuance of non-bailable warrants.

Power of Attorney filed on behalf of the JD is taken on record.2. The previous order has not been complied with by the JD. A detailed order has already been passed in Execution Petition No. 745/2019. So, in view of that the JD are directed to put in appearance on 09.03.2:020 to make a statement with regard their assets and the time schedule t o make payment and failing which their presence would be secured through by issuance of warrants.3. List on 09.03.2020 for further proceedings.

Proceedings                       Though the matter was fixed payment but the judgment debtor put in appearance through Mr. Prashant Sheoran, Advocate  and filed Memo of Appearance. P/A be filed on the next date2.                  A perusal of the case file shows that an amount of Rs.77,80,741/- in all is due against the judgment debtor and it failed to pay the same within the stipulated period. So, the same led to filing of execution petition. An attempt was made to attach the bank account of the  judgment debtor but no report with regard to attachment and recovery has been received. It is pleaded on behalf of the judgment debtor that it be given some time to make payment of the decretal amount . An offer has been   made that judgment debtor would pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the decree holder by the end of this month i.e. 29.02.2020. But keeping in view the amount involved, the offer being made by the judgment debtor is not genuine one. It is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- on or before  28.02.2020 and failing which the judgement debtor  through directors of the company, namely, Shri Sidharth Chauhan and Shri Dharam Chand Yadav would put in appearance as per provisions of Order 21 Rule 41 CPC to make a statement otherwise legal consequences would follow.3.            Let the matter be put up on 28.02.2020 for further proceedings.