Interim Order 29

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. MANOJ KUMAR-I, DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT)-05, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI.
Execution (COMM) No. 131/2024
In the matter of:
M/s Janki Enterprises
versus
M/s Mangalmay Radhey International and others
ORDER
This order shall decide an application under section 151 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) made on behalf of judgment
debtor No. 3 Krishan Mangal.
2. It is, inter alia, stated in the application that on 02.5.2026
the execution petition was listed before this court, however on 02.5.2026
the judgment debtor/applicant deposited 1,00,000/- by NEFT in the	₹
morning time; that the said fact was concealed by decree holder by not
mentioning the same in the court; that due to fracture in the right hand of
the judgment debtor he could not appear before the court when the
above said execution petition was called; that counsel for the judgment
debtor also did not appear before the court at that time; that in the very
morning on 02.5.2026 the judgment debtor deposited 1,00,000/- by	₹
NEFT; that the total settlement was made for 33,00,000/-, and, out of	₹
Contd...
-- 1 of 7 --
-2-
the said amount, the judgment debtor has already paid 22,70,000/- upto	₹
02.5.2026; that the remaining amount worth 10,30,000/- is to be paid	₹
by the judgment debtor upto October, 2026; that the judgment debtor
undertake to pay the same upto October, 2026 in all respect; that the
judgment debtor further undertook to pay the abovesaid amount in parts
time to time upto October, 2026; that the judgment debtor undertook that
he would pay the said amount in all respect upto the said period; that on
02.5.2026 the court passed the order for detention of the judgment
debtor for 7 days; that there is no bad intention of the judgment debtor in
any manner in making the payment of the said amount; that due to
fracture, the judgment debtor could not work and he could not collect the
money from the market; that the above said amount as per settlement
can be paid upto October, 2026; that the judgment debtor shall pay the
same within the said specific period; that the order dated 02.5.2026 is
required to be recalled and the judgment debtor may be given some
more time to make the payment within the specific period upto October,
2026. It is stated that the judgment debtor may be allowed to pay
the entire balance amount in parts upto October, 2026 as per settlement
under the abovementioned circumstances of the case and also in the
interest of justice.
3. The application is contested by the decree holder by way of
a written reply wherein it is stated that the present application filed
Contd...
-- 2 of 7 --
-3-
under section 151 CPC is not maintainable in the eyes of law as the
present application filed by the J.D. is false, frivolous, misconceived and
has been filed only to delay the execution proceedings and avoid
compliance with the lawful orders of this court; that the allegation that
the D.H. concealed the deposit of 1,00,000/- from this court is false	₹
and baseless; that even if the J.D. had initiated the alleged NEFT
transaction in the morning of 02.5.2026, the amount is not credited
instantaneously in every case; that an NEFT transaction is processed
through the banking system and may take some time before the amount
is actually credited to the beneficiary’s account; that unless and until the
amount was reflected in the account of the decree holder, the D.H. had
no knowledge or confirmation of the alleged deposit and, therefore,
there was no question of concealing the said fact from this court; that the
J.D. has repeatedly failed to honour the terms of the settlement and has
committed continuous defaults in payment; that the plea regarding
fracture in his hand is an afterthought and does not justify his non-
appearance or non-compliance with the settlement; that the J.D. has
deliberately concealed the material fact that he has repeatedly violated
the terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties; that initially,
the matter was settled before the Mediation Centre, wherein the J.D. had
undertaken to pay a sum of 3,00,000/- per month; that the J.D. failed to	₹
honour the said settlement and committed repeated defaults; that
thereafter, another arrangement was recorded before this court, whereby
Contd...
-- 3 of 7 --
-4-
the J.D. undertook to pay 1,00,000/- per month; that even the said	₹
undertaking was not complied with by the J.D., who again defaulted in
making the payments as agreed; that having repeatedly breached the
terms of the earlier settlements and undertakings, the J.D. cannot now
seek any equitable relief or rely upon yet another alleged settlement or
undertaking for payment of the balance amount by October, 2026; that
the conduct of the J.D. clearly demonstrates that his assurances are
neither bona fide nor reliable and have been made only to delay the
execution proceedings; that in view of the repeated breaches committed
by the J.D., the alleged settlement has lost its sanctity and is no longer
enforceable against the decree holder; that the decree holder is entitled to
execute the decree for the entire decretal amount along with interest; that
the J.D. cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own breaches and
seek enforcement of a settlement which he himself has failed to perform;
that having repeatedly violated the terms of the compromise, the J.D. has
rendered the settlement ineffective and unenforceable; that the J.D. has
forfeited any benefit arising out of the said compromise; that the total
decretal amount, as on the date of filing of the execution petition i.e.
03.4.2024 was 52,07,498/- (principal decretal amount to the tune of	₹
30,00,000/-, interest to the tune of 21,75,782/- and the court fee to the	₹ ₹
tune of 31,716/-); that the aforesaid amount is subject to adjustment of	₹
the payments, actually received by the decree holder; that the repeated
defaults committed by the J.D. disentitle him from claiming the benefit
Contd...
-- 4 of 7 --
-5-
of the conditional settlement, and the decree holder is legally entitled to
execute the decree for the entire decretal amount, subject to such
adjustment; that the contention of the J.D. that only 10,30,000/-	₹
remains payable is wholly false, misconceived and liable to be rejected;
that order dated 02.05.2026 passed by the court does not suffer from any
illegality or infirmity. It is stated that the application under section 151
CPC filed by the J.D. be dismissed and the execution proceedings be
continued in accordance with law.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through
the material on record carefully.
5. Having drawn the attention of the court on the contents of
the application it is submitted by counsel for the judgment debtors that
after passing of the decree, during the execution proceedings the matter
was referred to the Mediation Centre wherein a settlement was effected
between the parties. It is further submitted by counsel for the judgment
debtors that after the settlement the judgment debtors regularly made the
payment to the decree holder, but due to some unavoidable
circumstances, on some occasions, they could not make the payment as
per the settlement on time and have defaulted in making some payments.
It is further submitted by counsel for the judgment debtors that the
judgment debtors are ready to make the payment by the month
of October 2026, therefore, as per the settlement effected between the
Contd...
-- 5 of 7 --
-6-
parties before the Delhi Mediation Centre the judgment debtors may be
permitted to make the payment in installments as agreed to between the
parties before the Delhi Mediation Centre.
6. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for the decree holder
that the judgment debtors did not comply with the terms of the
settlement entered into between the parties before the Delhi Mediation
Centre, therefore, now they cannot take advantage of the said settlement.
It is further submitted by counsel for the decree holder that the judgment
debtors so far have made payment of 24,00,000/- approximately, and	₹
they are still liable to pay 28,00,000/- under the decree passed against	₹
them by this court. It is further submitted by counsel for the decree
holder that the application is misconceived and the same be dismissed.
7. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions
made on behalf of the parties.
8. As per the record of the proceedings, the decree holder/
plaintiff instituted a suit CS (COMM) No. 2891/2021 against the
judgment debtors/defendants, wherein, after trial, by judgment and
decree dated 11.10.2023, passed by the learned predecessor, the claim of
the decree holder was allowed in terms that the decree holder was found
entitled to 30,00,000/- against the judgment debtors with interest at the	₹
rate of 12% per annum from 18.3.2018. Since the judgment debtors did
not satisfied the decree dated 11.10.2023, therefore, the decree holder
made the present application for execution of the said decree. During the
Contd...
-- 6 of 7 --
-7-
pendency of the execution proceedings, at the request of the parties, the
matter was referred to the Delhi Mediation Centre for mediation, where,
on 27.7.2024, a settlement was effected between the parties whereunder
the judgment debtors/ defendants agreed to pay sum of 33,00,000/- in	₹
eleven equal monthly installments of 3,00,000/- each on or before	₹
every 10th day of English calendar month starting from August, 2024. As
per the said settlement the parties would be governed by the terms and
conditions of the settlement and in case the judgment debtors/defendants
did not comply, the decree holder would be at liberty to take appropriate
action as per law.
9. Admittedly, the judgment debtors have not complied with
the terms and conditions of the settlement effected between the parties
before the Delhi Mediation Centre, and therefore, the judgment debtors,
now, cannot insist that the decree holder should comply with the terms
of the settlement and should receive money from them in installments as
per the said settlement. Permitting such arrangement shall tantamount to
execution of the decree as per the wish and desire of the judgment
debtors. Since the judgment debtors have not complied with the terms of
the said settlement effected between the parties before the Delhi
Mediation Centre on 27.7.2024, therefore, the present application is
misconceived and the same is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court
on the 09th day of July, 2026 (MANOJ KUMAR-I)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-05
Central District: Tis Hazari: Delhi
-- 7 of 7 --