Dismissed¶32

Vinod Kumar v. Kulwant Singh & Anr.

Delhi HC18 Jul 2025CM(M)/108/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CM(M) 108/2025; Vinod Kumar v. Kulwant Singh & Anr.; High Court of Delhi; Tara Vitasta Ganju, J.; decision 18.07.2025; withdrawal of petition with liberty; challenge to award dated 29.07.2017 of learned Tribunal; forged signature on written statement; execution of award stayed against petitioner; impleadment of State as Respondent No.3; status report on investigation; P.S. Prashant Vihar; P.S. Narela; order dated 28.01.2025; CM APPL. 3235/2025 closed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law to challenge the Impugned Award; pending application (CM APPL. 3235/2025) closed. ¶32

Vinod Kumar Vs Kulwant Singh & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law to challenge the Impugned Award; pending application (CM APPL. 3235/2025) closed.

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent No.3/State was duly impleaded and bound by the predecessor Bench's directions despite counsel's contention that the amended memo of parties was not on record. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

The order dated 28.01.2025 of the predecessor Bench is self-explanatory; the State stood impleaded as Respondent No.3 with a direction to file a Status Report, and the contention of learned Counsel for Respondent No.3/State is without any merit.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner was granted permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law to challenge the Impugned Award, in light of the information received from Respondent No.3.

¶31

Key takeaways

The status report was directed to be filed within three days with an advance copy to learned Counsel for the Petitioner.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Tara Vitasta Ganju, J.), CM(M) 108/2025, Vinod Kumar v. Kulwant Singh & Anr., decided 18.07.2025: The petition challenged an award dated 29.07.2017 of the learned Tribunal. By order dated 28.01.2025 the predecessor Bench had stayed execution of the award against the petitioner, impleaded the State as Respondent No.3 and called for a status report on the petitioner's complaint that his signature on the written statement filed before the Tribunal was forged. When State counsel objected that the amended memo of parties was not on record and that the State was not a party, the Court held the earlier order self-explanatory and rejected the contention as meritless. Instructed that the complaint was pending at P.S. Narela (though notice had issued to P.S. Prashant Vihar), the petitioner sought and obtained leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to challenge the Impugned Award in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Petition dismissed as withdrawn; pending application closed; status report directed to be filed within three days with advance copy to petitioner's counsel.

¶1

$~57

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 18.07.2025

¶4

- CM(M) 108/2025 & CM APPL. 3235/2025

¶5

VINOD KUMAR .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Mr. Sonu, Mr. Rohan Aggarwal, Mr. Jai Kumar, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

KULWANT SINGH & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC with Ms. Ira Singh & Mr. Aryan Dhaka, Advocates for R-3/UOI with Insp. Vivekanand, SHO. Prashant Vihar.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)

¶11

By an order dated 28.01.2025, the predecessor Bench of this Court, after hearing the submissions on behalf of the Petitioner in the matter, had passed the following directions:

¶12

“3. It is the case of the petitioner that no written statement was filed by him before the learned Tribunal. It is alleged that the signature of the petitioner was forged. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of written statement filed before the learned Tribunal. The same appears to have been filed through an advocate, namely, Mr. S.P. Sharma.

¶13

4. The petitioner is stated to have also filed a complaint before P.S. Prashant Vihar in that regard.

¶14

5 . Let the State he impleaded as a necessary party in the present petition. On filing amended memo of parties by the petitioner within a week, notice be issued to the State through the learned Standing Counsel, returnable on 17.07.2025 .

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Da te:2 3.07.2025 02:18:36

¶17

CM(M) 108/2025 Page 1 of 3

¶18

6. Status report be also filed by the State in regard to the investigation, before the next date of hearing.

¶19

7. The execution of the award dated 29.07.2017 is stayed against the petitioner herein. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not impeded the learned Executing Court from proceeding further against the other respondents .”

¶20

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶21

In essence, the predecessor Court had directed that a complaint was filed with the Police Station Prashant Vihar by the Petitioner in respect of the accident, which was subject matter of the Award, which is under challenge before this Court. The predecessor Court had thereafter directed the State be impleaded as a necessary party and Notice be issued to the State through Standing Counsel and a Status Report be filed.

¶22

On 17.07.2025, since no Status Report was filed, the matter was listed for today.

¶23

Today, learned Counsel for Respondent No.3/State appears and submits that he is unclear as to the directions that have been passed by the predecessor Court and that he is not a party to the present Petition, because amended memo of parties is not on record.

¶24

4.1 It is clarified for this purpose that the order dated 28.01.2025 is selfexplanatory. The predecessor Court had impleaded the State as Respondent No.3 and directed the filing of the Status Report. Clearly, since the order of the predecessor Court is self-explanatory, the contention of the learned Counsel for Respondent No.3/State is without any merit.

¶25

Learned Counsel for Respondent No.3/State seeks to place on record a Status Report (photocopied signed). Let the Status Report be duly filed on record within four days.

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Da te:2 3.07.2025 02:18:36

¶28

CM(M) 108/2025 Page 2 of 3

¶29

Learned Counsel for Respondent No.3/State, however, submits that notice has been issued to Police Station at Prashant Vihar, however, the complaint is pending in Police Station Narela, as per his instructions.

¶30

6.1 Let the status report be filed within three days with an advance copy to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

¶31

After some arguments, learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks and is granted permission to withdraw the present Petition with liberty to file appropriate proceedings albeit in accordance with law to challenge the Impugned Award given the information as received from the Respondent No. 3.

¶32

The Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for in accordance with law. The pending Application stands closed.

¶33

The parties shall act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.

¶34

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

¶35

JULY 18, 2025/ ha

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Da te:2 3.07.2025 02:18:36

¶38

CM(M) 108/2025 Page 3 of 3

Vinod Kumar v. Kulwant Singh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar v. Kulwant Singh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Charan Dass & Ors. Vs Mukesh Kumar

Piyush Goyal Vs Om Prakash & Anr.

Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee Vs Narjeet Singh Sachdeva & Anr.

Manisha Rao Vs Asjeet Singh Lamba

Shri Ajay Sharma Vs Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma

Ram Lal Ahuja and Anr. Vs Inder Ahuja

Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway Vs Sh Prakash Mani Tripathi & Ors.

Prem Raj Singh Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Inderjeet Singh Maggon Vs Harash Suri

Arun @ Dev Saini Vs Sahid & Ors.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kanta Devi & Ors.

Rajendra Singh Vs Jitender Kumar

Minosha India Limited Vs Mr. Deepak Tiwari & Ors.

Nexim Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs B B Patel & Anr.