Disposed

Tarun Sharma & Anr. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC10 May 2016W.P.(C)/4101/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenge maintenance orders requiring them to pay respondent relatives; a settlement was allegedly agreed but never brought to the court notice of lower Tribunal. Court stayed orders pending recall application.

What did the court decide?

Stayed impugned order and notice till recall application is decided; elaborated that petitioners to file an application for recall.

Tarun Sharma & Anr. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors. — Maintenance and Alimony | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

#28

¶2

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4101/2016 & CM APPLs. 17280-17281/2016

¶4

TARUN SHARMA & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Sandeep Vishnu with Ms. Mahak Gupta, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Pankaj Sinha, Advocate for GNCTD.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

¶8

O R D E R % 10.05.2016

¶9

On the oral prayer of learned counsel for petitioner, respondent no. 1- GNCTD is deleted from the array of parties. Let an amended memo of parties be filed within one week.

¶10

It is pertinent to mention that present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30^th September, 2015 whereby the Maintenance Tribunal for Senior Citizens, Dist. South West [for short “Tribunal”] has directed the petitioners to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

¶11

Petitioners further challenge notice dated 31^st March, 2016 whereby the Tribunal has directed the petitioners to deposit Rs. 60,000/- on account of rent.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the respondent nos. 2 and 3 whereunder they have paid Rs. 26,70,000/- to respondent nos. 2 and 3 as against the agreed amount of Rs. 26,50,000/- in full and final settlement.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that the said fact was brought to the notice of the Tribunal and a copy of Memorandum of Understanding/Settlement was taken on record vide order dated 9^th September, 2015.

¶14

It is the case of the petitioners that the Tribunal being fully aware of the settlement between the parties could not have directed the petitioners to make any further payment.

¶15

Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court directs the petitioners to file an application for recall of the order dated 30^th September, 2015 and notice dated 31^st March, 2016. Till the said application is decided, neither the impugned order dated 30^th September, 2015 and Notice dated 31^st March, 2016 shall be given effect to nor any coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶16

However, it is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy and rights and contentions of all parties are left open.

¶17

With the aforesaid directions, present writ petition and applications stand disposed of.

¶18

Order dasti under signature of Court Master.

¶19

MANMOHAN, J

¶20

MAY 10, 2016 rn

Tarun Sharma & Anr. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarun Sharma & Anr. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ct./Drv.Ismail Khan Vs UOI & Ors.

Ram Awatar Verma Vs Union of India & Anr.

Shikha Malhotra Vs Director of Education and Ors.

Ex. Const. Gd Rajbir Singh Vs UOI & Ors.

Gita & Ors. Vs Delhi Development Authority

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs D.D.A. and Anr.

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs D.D.A. and Anr.

Ttk Healthcare Limited Vs Gnct of Delhi & Ors.

R.S. Tokas (Retd.) & Ors. Vs Defence Services Officers Welfare Fund (Dsowf) & Ors.

M/S. Punj Lloyd Aviation Ltd. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Gvk Jaipur Kishangarh Expressway Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Sheetal Vs Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr.

M/S Essel Mining & Industries Limited Vs Union of India and Anr.

Excellent India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Aman Sinha and Anr.