SHAUKAT ALI KHAN Vs. BUBU KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application, the defendant Babu Khan seeks unconditional leave to defend the suit filed by the plaintiff, Shaukat Ali Khan under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Although very many pleas have been stated therein, yet Mr. S, K. Puri, learned counsel for the defendant confined his argument to show prima,facie that a triable issue has been raised inasmuch as the defendant's agreements to pay the amount in question, which agreements are the basis of the suit are expressly hit by Ss. 9(l)(a) and 47 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter called as the Act). To appreciate the rival contentions I may notice a few admitted facts.

(2.) The plaintiff in the suit has alleged that he was employed in Saudi Arabia when he entered into a partnership with the defendant for carrying on business in Delhi of manufacturing and sale of paints etc. In reply to this application it is further not denied that when defendant agreed in writing to pay to the plaintiff an amount of Rs. 1,26,000.00 by the end of December, 1983, he (the plaintiff) was "a person resident outside India". In this connection it is useful to quote paragraph 5 of the application and the reply thereto :

(3.) However, the agreements dated the 9th December, 1983 and 24th December, 1984 are being admitted. S. 9 of the Act imposes restriction on payments. S. 47 of the Act lays down that no person shall enter into any contract or agreement which evades or avoids in any way the operation of any provisions of the Act or any rule etc. Relevant provisions of S. 9 on which emphasis has been laid down, read as under :