TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 2283
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amount. The cheques on presentation were dishonoured with the remarks 'insufficient funds'. The respondent thereafter filed complaints under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Meanwhile, parties entered into an amicable settlement under which the appellant agreed to settle the matter with the respondent and offered to pay Rs.3,22,02,660/- along with pendente lite interest and future interest at the rate of 24%, per annum, till realization. Deed of compromise dated 31.8.2013 was executed and a post-dated cheque was handed over to the respondent, which was dishonoured with the remark 'insufficient fund'. This settlement was also not honoured by the appellants. As the settlement was not honoured, the respondent filed a suit for recovery under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure for Rs.4,38,00,617/-. Even before the High Court, parties entered into a settlement on 23.12.2016. This settlement was also not honoured by the appellants. When the matter came up for hearing before the Single Judge on 10.1.2018, counsel for the appellants sought an adjournment. The matter was adjourned to 11.1.2018 making it clear that no further adjournment would be granted o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he application is allowed Relist for further proceedings on 21.09.2016." " Order 21.08.2016 Vakalatnama has been on behalf of defendant no.3. All the defendants have entered appearance. However, the plaintiff has not taken the steps for issuance of summons for judgment. Relist for further proceedings on 03.11.2016." " Order 29.09.2016 IA. 12147/2016 (under Order XXXVII Rule 3(4) (summons for Judgment) by the plaintiff Issue notice to the defendants at the address mentioned in the memo of appearance. List before the Joint Registrar on 03.11.2016, the date already fixed. The Joint Registrar will place the matter before the Court in the first week of December 2016. Parties to ensure that all pleadings are completed before the next date of hearing before the Court." " Order 03.11.2016 IA No.12147/2016 (u/O XXXVII Rule 3(4) CPC by plaintiff) The defendants remain un-served. However, learned counsel for the defendants has entered appearance. At joint request the matter be sent to the Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre on 07.11.2016 at 02:00 pm Relist for reporting settlement if any on 15.11.2016. the short dates have been given in view of directi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ued on 3.11.2016 and thereafter the matter was directed to be placed before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre vide order dated 3.11.2016. In the order dated 15.11.2016, the Joint Registrar noticed that the mediation efforts had failed and the appellants herein were directed to file leave to defend within ten days. The matter was again adjourned to enable the parties to explore the possibility of a settlement on 28.11.2016, 5.12.2016 and 19.12.2016. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that on 23.12.2016, the Court noticed that the parties had entered into a settlement and the matter was adjourned to 17.1.2017 and then adjourned for almost one year to 10.1.2018 to enable the appellant to honour the terms of settlement. It is further contended that on account of the fact that serious efforts were being made to resolve the matter amicably, the appellants did not file the application for leave to defend within ten days of service of summons for judgment. Counsel further points out that the application for leave to defend was filed on 5.12.2016 but on account of talks of settlement the appellants were under the impression that his application for leave to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Code are no doubt extremely stringent. The same are to be followed strictly, as the suits falling in this Chapter, as the heading suggests, are Summary suits, based on a written contract or dishonour of cheque etc. 12. It may be noted that the parties entered into a settlement on two occasions but the appellants did not comply with the terms of settlement. The matter was listed before the Single Judge on 10.1.2018, when the same was adjourned at the request of the counsel for the appellants, it was made clear that no adjournment would be granted on the next date. Despite an express direction having been given, no steps were taken by the counsel of the appellants to ensure that the applications were placed on record. 13. Additionally, we find that the parties had entered into an amicable settlement during the pendency of the suit by a Compromise Deed dated 23.12.2016 on the following terms: "10. Terms of Settlement: 10.1 It is agreed that the defendants having admitted their liability jointly and severally in the present suit for entire amount as prayed but for the purpose of this settlement they have agreed to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,38,61,907/- (Rupees Two Crores....