Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 46 views

    In The Hon'Ble High Court of Delhi at Delhi

    Uploaded by

    madhav1100
    The petitioner is disputing the interest calculations provided by the respondent in a court case, arguing that charging interest on interest is unjustified and that the total amount owed according to the original court decree is Rs. 1,74,760. The petitioner provides a counter calculation of interest owed and requests the court to grant the relief sought in the original complaint.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    In The Hon'Ble High Court of Delhi at Delhi

    Uploaded by

    madhav1100
    46 views8 pages
    The petitioner is disputing the interest calculations provided by the respondent in a court case, arguing that charging interest on interest is unjustified and that the total amount owed according to the original court decree is Rs. 1,74,760. The petitioner provides a counter calculation of interest owed and requests the court to grant the relief sought in the original complaint.

    Original Description:

    rejoinder

    Original Title

    (P) Ltd rejoinder 04.05.2019

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner is disputing the interest calculations provided by the respondent in a court case, arguing that charging interest on interest is unjustified and that the total amount owed according to the original court decree is Rs. 1,74,760. The petitioner provides a counter calculation of interest owed and requests the court to grant the relief sought in the original complaint.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    46 views8 pages

    In The Hon'Ble High Court of Delhi at Delhi

    Uploaded by

    madhav1100
    The petitioner is disputing the interest calculations provided by the respondent in a court case, arguing that charging interest on interest is unjustified and that the total amount owed according to the original court decree is Rs. 1,74,760. The petitioner provides a counter calculation of interest owed and requests the court to grant the relief sought in the original complaint.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 8

    IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT DELHI

    C.M.(M) NO…………………… OF 2018


    IN
    EXECUTION PETITION NO 164/2017

    IN THE MATTER OF:


    M/s S&S Technocrate (P) Ltd ……….Petitioner

    Versus
    Shri Rathi Steel Ltd …………Respondent

    REJOINDER ON BEHALF OF PETITINER TO THE REPLY


    FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1.

    MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

    Preliminary submissions:
    1. It is at the outset humbly submitted that Decree Holder has

    filed a 7 page reply which is completely against the decree

    passed by the hon’ble Delhi high court. The amount of

    interest charged by decree holder in their calculation sheet is

    exorbitant, from an economic standpoint therefore it is

    completely unjustified.
    2. It is submitted that amount arrived at from 04.08.2009 till

    date of filing 28.04.2013 is Rs. 46,27,254. Thereafter taking

    Rs. 46,27,254 as principal and calculating further interest on

    the same for the period of 29.04.2013 to 4.09.2015 is

    absolutely unjustified and unwarranted. Respondents in their

    own sweet will have appropriated the amount towards

    interest and towards basic amount and had charged interest

    on the sum of Rs. 46,27,254 taking it as a principal amount

    for the abovesaid period which was not at all the intention of

    the decree originally passed on 10.10.2014.

    3. It is submitted that interest of 16% from 04.08.2009 till the

    date of disbursement of 45 lakh bank guarantee submitted by

    petitioner i.e. 17.09.2015 amounts to Rs. 28,32,220/- which

    in total amounts to Rs. 57,25,641/-, accordingly on

    submission of bank guarantee remaining amount of

    12,25,641/- was pending to be paid by the petitioner and the

    amount of Rs 12,25,641 is liable to be charged with interest

    of 16% till the realisation of amount and not the amount as

    arrived by the Respondents whereby interest has been

    calculated on interest.
    4. That the interest which has to be paid as per decree dated 10

    October 2014 from 04.08.2009 to 17.09.2015 was Rs.

    57,09,683/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Lakh Nine Thousand Six

    Hundred and Eighty Three only). Out of the said amount

    petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty

    Five Lakhs only) on 17.09.2015. the balance amount

    remaining was Rs. 12,09,683/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Nine

    Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Three only).

    5. That thereafter petitioner further paid a sum of Rs.

    17,40,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakh Forty Thousand only)

    on 17.01.2018 towards the remaining amount. From the date

    of payment of Rs. 45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs

    only) i.e. 17.09.2015 till 17.01.2018 amount of interest was

    Rs. 4,83,873/- (Rupees Four Lakh Eighty Three Thousand

    Eight Hundred and Seventy Three only).

    6. That interest from 17.09.2015 till 17.01.2018 amounting to

    Rs. 4,83,873/- (Rupees Four Lakh Eighty Three Thousand

    Eight Hundred and Seventy Three only) added to remaining

    amount of Rs. 12,09,683/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Nine

    Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Three only) totalled to an

    amount of Rs. 16,93,556/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakh Ninety


    Three Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Six Only) was due on

    part of petitioner as on 17.01.2018.

    7. That the petitioner paid an amount of Rs 17,40,000/-

    (Rupees Seventeen Lakh Forty Thousand only) towards the

    above stated amount on 17.01.2018. Thereafter it was

    calculated that an amount of Rs. 46,443/- (Forty-Six

    Thousand Four Hundred and Forty-Three only) was paid in

    excess. Further an amount of 2,21,203/- was due towards

    cost. Which after deduction amounted to Rs. 1,74,760/- (One

    Lakh Seventy Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty only).

    Therefore total amount payable by the petitioner is Rs.

    1,74,760/- (One Lakh Seventy Four Thousand Seven Hundred

    and Sixty only).

    8. It is submitted that the judgement quoted by the Ld ADJ Ms.

    Priya Mahendra under which it is stated that Kerala State

    Electricity Board vs Kurien E. Kalathil (2018) 4 SCC 793

    REPLY TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:-

    9. That the contents of Para No.1 to 3 of preliminary objection

    of the Reply are absolutely wrong and hence the same are

    vehemently denied. It is specifically denied that no cause or


    occasion for the Applicant to file the present application, the

    present application is gross abuse misuse of the process of

    law. hence the application of the applicant is liable to be

    dismissed.

    REJOINDER TO THE PARAWISE REPLY:


    1. That the contents of para 1 to 7 of the para wise reply so

    far as it does not admit of the contents of corresponding

    para of the application are wrong and denied and the

    contents of corresponding para of the application are re-

    asserted and reiterated.

    2. That the contents of Para No. 8 of the para wise reply is

    absolutely wrong and hence the same are vehemently

    denied. It is submitted that the calculation sheet

    submitted by the respondent is wrong and hence merit no

    response.

    3. That the contents of para 9 of the para wise reply so far

    as it does not admit of the contents of corresponding para

    of the application are wrong and denied and the contents

    of corresponding para of the application are re-asserted

    and reiterated.

    REJOINDER TO REPLY TO THE GROUNDS:


    1. That the contents of para A of the grounds so far as it

    does not admit of the contents of corresponding para of

    the application are wrong and denied and the contents

    of corresponding para of the application are re-asserted

    and reiterated.

    2. That the contents of para B of the grounds so far as it

    does not admit of the contents of corresponding para of

    the application are wrong and denied and the contents

    of corresponding para of the application are re-asserted

    and reiterated.

    3. That the contents of para C of the grounds so far as it

    does not admit of the contents of corresponding para of

    the application are wrong and denied and the contents

    of corresponding para of the application are re-asserted

    and reiterated.

    4. That the contents of para D of the grounds so far as it

    does not admit of the contents of corresponding para of

    the application are wrong and denied and the contents

    of corresponding para of the application are re-asserted

    and reiterated.
    5. That the contents of para E to F of the grounds so far as

    it does not admit of the contents of corresponding para

    of the application are wrong and denied and the

    contents of corresponding para of the application are

    re-asserted and reiterated

    6. That the contents of para G to I of the grounds so far as

    it does not admit of the contents of corresponding para

    of the application are wrong and denied and the

    contents of corresponding para of the application are

    re-asserted and reiterated.

    7. That the contents of para J of the grounds so far as it

    does not admit of the contents of corresponding para of

    the application are wrong and denied and the contents

    of corresponding para of the application are re-asserted

    and reiterated.

    8. That the contents of para 10 to 12 of the grounds so far

    as it does not admit of the contents of corresponding

    para of the application are wrong and denied and the

    contents of corresponding para of the application are

    re-asserted and reiterated.


    9. That the contents of reply to Prayer clause are

    absolutely wrong and hence the same are vehemently

    denied. On the contrary it is respectfully submitted that

    the prayer made in the corresponding prayer clause of

    the complaint are reiterated as correct.

    PRAYER

    Last Para of the reply is a prayer to this Hon’ble

    Court which merits no consideration. On the

    contrary the complainant prays before this Hon’ble

    Court that the relief prayed in the complaint may

    kindly be granted in favour of the complainant and

    against the opposite party.

    New Delhi Petitiner through

    Counsels

    Filed on:

    You might also like