Disposed

Mr Parveen Kumar Jolly & Anr. v. Mr Raman Kumar & Anr.

Delhi HC14 Jan 2019CS(COMM)/30/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The plaintiff filed a suit for possession, injunctions, and mesne profits regarding a property dispute. During hearing on I.A. No. 416/2019, due to the withdrawal of that application and a prospective settlement between parties regarding the main suit, the court disposed of the matter.

What did the court decide?

The plaint suit is disposed of based on accepted undertakings by both parties regarding a prolonged payment settlement linked to the decreeability of prayer clauses in the main suit.

Mr Parveen Kumar Jolly & Anr. Vs Mr Raman Kumar & Anr. — Property and Title | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 30/2015

¶4

MR PARVEEN KUMAR JOLLY & ANR ..... Plaintiffs

¶5

Through Ms.Vibha Mahajan, Advocate with plaintiff no.1 in person.

¶6

versus

¶7

MR RAMAN KUMAR & ANR ..... Defendants Through Mr.Rajiv Bajaj, Advocate with D-1 in person.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

O R D E R

% 14.01.2019

I.A.No.416/2019

After some arguments, learned counsel for the defendants wishes to withdraw the present application. Consequently, the same is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶14

CS(COMM) No.30/2015

¶15

Present suit has been filed for permanent and mandatory injunction, recovery of possession, mesne profits and damages. The prayer clause in the present suit is reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶16

(a) Decree of possession in favour of plaintiff no.1 and against the defendants in respect to the second floor along with terrace of the suit property bearing No.D-140, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi;

¶17

(b) Decree of mesne profits and damages in favour of the plaintiff no.1 and against the defendants at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per month with effect from 01.11.2015 till the date of handing over the actual physical possession of the second floor along with

¶18

terrace of the aforementioned suit property;

¶19

(c) Decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from executing any documents including sale deed or other title or ownership documents in favour of any third party in respect to 2/3^rd share in the suit property bearing No.D-140, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi except in favour of the plaintiff no.2 company;

¶20

(d) Decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant no.1 directing the defendants to take necessary steps for the conversion of the suit property bearing No.D-140, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi from leasehold to freehold along with the plaintiff no.1 and thereafter execute the sale deed in respect to 2/3^rd share in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff no.2 and present the same for registration;

¶21

(e) Decree for costs be also awarded in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants;

¶22

(f) Any other or further order(s) that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

¶23

On 07^th October, 2016, the present matter was amicably resolved by way of Settlement Agreement executed before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Under the Settlement Agreement dated 07^th October, 2016, a sum of Rs.3 crores was to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs in various instalments in full and final settlement.

¶24

Till date, the defendants have only paid a sum of Rs.45 lakhs to the plaintiffs under the aforesaid Settlement Agreement.

¶25

Today, learned counsel for the defendants, on instructions of defendant no.1 who is personally present in Court, states that the defendants shall pay Rs.2,65,00,000/- in full and final settlement of

¶26

the plaintiffs‟ claims within a period of six months i.e. on or before 15^th June, 2019. He further states that, in the event of default in payment of the aforesaid sum within the stipulated period, the present suit shall stand decreed in terms of aforesaid prayers (a) to (d) in the present suit. Any sum paid till that date (including a sum of Rs.45 lakhs) shall be adjusted towards mesne profits and the excess amount be refunded to the defendants without any interest.

¶27

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs, on instructions of plaintiff no.1 who is personally present in Court, states that the plaintiffs have no objection to the present suit being decreed in the aforesaid terms. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also assures and undertakes to this Court that, in the event the payment of Rs.2,65,00,000/- is paid on or before 15^th June, 2019, the plaintiff no.1 will execute the title documents with respect to 1/3^rd share of the suit property in favour of defendant no.1 and shall hand over the original title documents with respect to 2/3^rd balance share to the defendant no.1 within a period of two weeks.

¶28

The statements/undertakings given by both the counsel are accepted by this Court and the parties are held bound by the same. Registry is directed to prepare a decree sheet accordingly.

¶29

With the aforesaid directions, present suit stands disposed of. As a token of acceptance of today‟s order, the plaintiff no.1 as well as defendant no.1 and also their respective counsel are directed to sign the order sheet.

¶30

MANMOHAN, J

¶31

JANUARY 14, 2019/KA

Mr Parveen Kumar Jolly & Anr. v. Mr Raman Kumar & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Parveen Kumar Jolly & Anr. v. Mr Raman Kumar & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Kingsmen Fairtech International (P) Ltd. Vs M/S Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Ltd.

Microsoft Corporation & Anr. Vs Mr.Anand Mohan & Anr.

M/S Bhushan Steel Ltd. Vs M/S Radical Europe Limited

M/S K.Cj & Co. Vs M/S Kulubi Impex

M/S J.P.C. Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.

Pradyuman Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. Vs Orchid Salon Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Neetu Singh Vs Rajiv Saumitra & Ors.

Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland & Anr. Vs M Avinash & Anr.

M/S Kingsmen Fairtech International (P) Ltd. Vs M/S Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Ltd.

Manish Sharma Vs M/S Apparels India Na Dnar

Avinash Chopra & Another Vs Ashwini Kumar & Another

Novex Communication Private Limited Vs Worldwide Media Private Limited & Ors.

Govind Ram Vs State of NCT Delhi and Ors.

Mpower Softcomm Priviate Limited Vs Mr Vishal Gupta & Ors.