Dismissed

Taurant Projects Ltd. v. National Building Consturction Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

Delhi HC6 Feb 2018EFA(OS)/1/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Intra-Court appeal against an order in an execution petition regarding pollution clearance compliance under a settlement agreement. The court held that the consent period was valid but the appellant did not undertake trial production, finding no merit in the appeal, and dismissed it.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; applications for condonation of delay and re-filing treated as dismissed.

Taurant Projects Ltd. Vs National Building… — Execution and Attachment | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- EFA(OS) 1/2018

¶4

TAURANT PROJECTS LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Raman Gandhi, Ms.Parneet Singh, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Manoj K. Das, Adv. for R1

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

¶8

O R D E R % 06.02.2018

¶9

CM No.2953/2018

¶10

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

EFA(OS) 1/2018 & CM Nos.2952/2018 & 2954/2018

¶12

Taurant Projects Limited has filed the present intra-Court appeal impugning order dated 15^th March, 2017 passed by the single Judge in Execution Petition No.250/2015.

¶13

Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant wants to invoke arbitration clause and therefore the observations made in the impugned order may be set aside or it should be clarified that these observations would not come in the way of the appellant in the arbitration proceedings.

¶14

The appellant herein had earlier filed CS(OS) No.1228/2010 against National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. and Ambala Municipal Corporation. Subsequently, the parties entered into a settlement agreement dated 15^th February, 2011 which was recorded by the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The settlement agreement had stipulated that in order to comply with the directions of the Haryana State Pollution Control Board for grant of no objection certificate, process had been initiated by Ambala Municipal Corporation to obtain ‘consent to operate’.

¶15

The appellant thereafter filed execution petition with a prayer that the judgment debtors should be directed to get appropriate Pollution Control Board clearance and comply with the terms of the settlement agreement dated 15^th February, 2011. The second prayer was to direct Ambala Municipal Corporation to take steps to maintain land fill site.

¶16

The judgment debtors who are the respondents before us had filed their reply controverting the submissions made by the appellant. It was stated that the Haryana Pollution Control Board had granted ‘consent to operate’ for the period 6^th April, 2015 to 5^th July, 2015 for trial production. The finding of the single Judge is, and the same is not disputed, that the appellant did not carry out trial production during the period 6^th April, 2015 to 5^th July, 2015. In these circumstances, it has been held that there was due compliance of the terms of settlement.

¶17

We do not see any reason or ground to interfere with the impugned order in view of the admission by the appellant that the aforesaid ‘consent to operate’ was valid during the period 6^th April, 2015 to 5^th July, 2015. The appellant did not take advantage and undertake trial production. The appeal

¶18

therefore does not have any merit and is accordingly dismissed. 7. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to issue notice on the applications seeking condonation of delay in filing and re-filing of the appeal. Accordingly, the said applications would be treated as dismissed.

¶19

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

¶20

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.

¶21

FEBRUARY 06, 2018 Pk/VKR

Taurant Projects Ltd. v. National Building Consturction Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taurant Projects Ltd. v. National Building Consturction Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs International Lease Finance Corporation Ltd. through M/S Dua Associates

Shashi Verma and Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT and Ors.

Dolby International Ab & Anr. Vs Das Telecom Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Twenty First Century Steels Ltd. Vs Union of India & Anr.

State of West Bengal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Optum Global Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.