Once the settlement reached is accepted by the Court or an undertaking is given, it becomes binding on the parties

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT OF  DELHI  AT  NEW  DELHI
 SUBJECT : NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881
Date of decision: 9th January, 2013
CRL.REV.P. 11/2013
HARDEEP BAJAJ    ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Akil Rataeeya, Adv.
   versus
ICICI BANK LTD.    ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.  
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
 
J U D G M E N T
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
Crl.MA No.227/2013 (delay)
1. There is a delay of 8 days in filing the Petition.  
2. For the reasons as stated in the Application, the delay of 8 days in filing
the Petition is condoned.
3. The Application is allowed.
CRL.REV.P. 11/2013 and Crl.MA 228/2013 (stay)
4. The Petitioner approached the Respondent ICICI Bank Limited for grant
of some credit facility.  The Respondent Bank acceded to the Petitioner’s
request and granted him credit facility to carry out the business of his sole
Proprietorship firm Bajaj Machinery Stores.  The Petitioner undertook to pay
the outstanding amount to the Respondent Bank as due and payable from
time to time.  In discharge of part of his debts/liability towards the
Respondent Bank, the Petitioner issued a cheque for amount of `15 lacs bearing No.097644 dated 02.01.2010 drawn on Canara Bank in favour of the
Respondent.  When the cheque was presented for encashment, the same was
dishonoured with the remarks “fund insufficient.” A demand notice issued
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the N.I.Act)
remained unheeded compelling the Respondent Bank to file a Complaint
under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the N.I.Act.    
5. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) took cognizance of the
complaint and issued summons to the Petitioner for his appearance.  During
pendency of the Complaint case, it was referred to  the Mediation Centre,
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi where on 26.05.2012 the parties entered into an
amicable settlement whereby the Petitioner agreed to pay a sum of `
9.08,800/- in full and final settlement of the Claim of the Respondent Bank
in monthly installments of `1,50,000/- commencing from 26.05.2012. The
last installment of `1,58,800/- was to be paid on 26.10.2012.
6. The Petitioner did not honour the settlement.  His plea is that on
07.06.2012 he was admitted in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital where angioplasty
was done and he was discharged from the hospital on 11.06.2012. A perusal
of the photocopies of the documents from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital testifies
that the Petitioner did undergo angioplasty on 08.06.2012.  He was advised
rest for three weeks w.e.f. 11.06.2012.
7. On 25.08.2012, the Petitioner approached the learned MM for modifying
the settlement dated 26.05.2012 reached between the parties and waiving the
costs of `5,000/- imposed by an order dated 16.08.2012. The learned MM
noticed that the Petitioner had violated the successive undertakings given by
him. It was observed that the Petitioner failed to pay a sum of `1 lac also in
view of his revised undertaking and had brought a demand draft for just
`17,000/- on 25.08.2012. The Court further noticed  that the Petitioner
committed breach of the undertaking given by him on 26.05.2012,
26.06.2012, 01.08.2012 and 16.08.2012.  Admittedly, the Petitioner had to
be suddenly admitted in the hospital only on 07.6.2012. He was discharged
from the hospital on 11.06.2012.  Knowing his condition fully well, the
Petitioner gave undertakings dated 26.06.2012, 01.08.2012 and 16.08.2012.
The learned MM noticed that there was no change of  circumstances since
the previous undertakings (right from 26.06.2012) and thus, the application
for modification of the settlement dated 26.05.2012 was dismissed with
adjournment costs of `25,000/-. 8. The Petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the order dated 25.08.2012
before the learned ASJ.
9. It is true that the Court has to be sympathetic  to a litigant particularly
when he/she suddenly suffers some ailment.  In the  instant case, the
Petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 07.06.2012 and was discharged on
11.06.2012. The entire amount of `9,08,800/- was payable by the Petitioner
in six installments and the last installment of `1,58,800/- was payable on
26.10.2012.  We are in the month of January, 2013.  Out of sum of
`9,08,800/-, the Petitioner has paid only a sum of `2.5 lacs which sufficiently
reflects the conduct of the Petitioner. On an amount of `9,08,800/-
adjournment costs of `25,000/- particularly by moving an application to
change the terms of settlement cannot be said to be exorbitant and excessive.  
10. Once the settlement reached is accepted by the Court or an undertaking
is given, it becomes binding on the parties.  Moreover, the Petitioner’s
conduct does not entitle him of any indulgence.  
11. In my view, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order dated
25.08.2012 passed by the learned MM and order dated 28.09.2012 passed by
the learned ASJ.
12. The Petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
13. Pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of.          
  Sd/-
(G.P. MITTAL)
              JUDGE
JANUARY 09, 2013