Dismissed

Mrs. Manmeet Sumra Chonker v. Mr. Vipal Kumar Farmah & Anr.

Delhi HC1 Sept 2026CONT.CAS(C)/1087/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition alleged that respondents breached a settlement agreement by violating relocation compensation regarding a nursery school. The court held the agreement did not allow the petitioner to transfer the school to a vastly larger and more expensive premises in Mohali to claim compensation, finding no contempt.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. No obligation found on respondents to pay relocation compensation for the Mohali school premises.

Mrs. Manmeet Sumra Chonker Vs Mr. Vipal Kumar… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 01^st September, 2026

¶4

CNR No. DLHC010479212025

¶5

CONT.CAS(C) 1087/2025 & CM APPL. 24621/2026, CM APPL. 29074/2026, CM APPL. 45818/2026

¶6

MRS. MANMEET SUMRA CHONKER .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhik Chimni, Mr. Ayan Das Gupta, Ms. Pranjal Abrol, Mr. Gurupal Singh, Ms. Moksha Sharma and Mr. Tushar Chandra, Advs. Mob: 9971830490 Email: [email protected]

¶7

versus

¶8

MR. VIPAL KUMAR FARMAH & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Satyam Bhatia, Mr. Shashwat Misra, Advocates (M:9999666289)

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶11

MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL):

¶12

The present petition has been filed alleging wilful breach of the undertaking given to this Court, as recorded in the order dated 11^th September, 2024, in RFA 382/2024.

¶13

The respondents are the owners of the subject premises, i.e., property bearing no. ER/Shop No.32, Khasra No. 1609, Naraina, Delhi , where the petitioner was a tenant, and was running a nursery school.

¶14

This Court notes that disputes between the parties were settled by way of the Settlement Agreement dated 09^th September, 2024, arrived at between

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:0 6.09.2026 16:13:36

¶17

Page 1 of 13

¶18

the parties, which is reproduced as under:

¶19

“

¶20

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:0 6.09.2026 16:13:36

¶21

Page 2 of 13

¶22

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:0 6.09.2026 16:13:36

¶23

Page 3 of 13

¶24

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:0 6.09.2026 16:13:36

¶25

Page 4 of 13

¶26

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:0 6.09.2026 16:13:36

¶27

Page 5 of 13

¶28

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:0 6.09.2026 16:13:36

¶29

Page 6 of 13

¶30

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:0 6.09.2026 16:13:36

¶31

Page 7 of 13

¶32

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:0 6.09.2026 16:13:36

¶33

Page 8 of 13

¶34

”

¶35

On the basis of the aforesaid Settlement Agreement, the RFA 382/2024 was disposed of vide order dated 11^th September, 2024, in the following manner:

¶36

“

¶37

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:0 6.09.2026 16:13:36

¶38

Page 9 of 13

¶39

”

¶40

Perusal of the aforesaid Settlement Agreement shows that the petitioner herein was running a nursery school on the subject premises, which measured 219.5 Sq. Yards. Further, the rent being paid by the petitioner to the respondents for the subject premises was initially fixed at Rs. 50,000/- per month, and at the time of said Settlement Agreement, the same was increased to Rs. 63,500/- per month.

¶41

Signature Not Verified

¶42

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:0 6.09.2026 16:13:36

¶43

Page 10 of 13

¶44

The said Settlement Agreement was arrived at between the parties since the petitioner left the premises three years prior to the expiry of the lease deed dated 02^nd May, 2018, executed between the parties. As per the said Settlement Agreement, the respondents had agreed to compensate the petitioner for relocation and re-establishment of the nursery school at a new premises, including, all reasonable costs associated with relocation and the difference in rent paid between the subject premises and new premises for three years.

¶45

It has come to the fore that pursuant to the Settlement Agreement dated 09^th September, 2024, the subject premises was vacated by the petitioner on 30^th April, 2025. Moreover, the petitioner had also paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the respondents towards the maintenance charges.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have violated Clause 07 of the Settlement Agreement dated 09^th September, 2024, and have not compensated the petitioner for relocation and re-establishment cost for the school at the new premises, including, difference in the rent between the original and new premises for three years.

¶47

This Court is informed that after relocation, the petitioner has opened a school at Mohali, Punjab, in an area measuring 1022 Sq. Yards. Further, the petitioner is stated to be paying a rent of Rs. 3,25,000/- per month for the said new premises.

¶48

Attention of this Court has been drawn to the various bank statements to show that the rent for the new premises in Mohali, is regularly being paid by the petitioner. However, the respondents have not compensated the petitioner for the same.

¶49

This Court also takes note of the submission made by learned counsel

¶50

Signature Not Verified

¶51

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:0 6.09.2026 16:13:36

¶52

Page 11 of 13

¶53

for the respondents that the petitioner has taken the aforesaid premises on rent from her brother-in-law. On pointed query by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner concedes to the said fact and does not deny the same.

¶54

Perusal of the terms of the Settlement Agreement arrived at between the parties, which was entered at New Delhi for the school running at New Delhi, shows that it was agreed between the parties that the respondents shall compensate the petitioner for relocation and re-establishment of the school at a new premises. However, the said Settlement Agreement cannot be construed in a manner that the petitioner would open a school at Mohali, Punjab, in order to bind the respondent to make payments towards the same. The intention of the parties, as recorded in the terms of the Settlement Agreement between the parties, cannot certainly be construed to giving free liberty to the petitioner to open a new school anywhere in the country and claim rent for the same from the respondent.

¶55

Furthermore, it is noted that the area where the school which was earlier being run by the petitioner at New Delhi measured 219.5 Sq. Yards, however, the new premises in which the school is now being run by the petitioner at Mohali, measures 1022 Sq. Yards. 14. It is also material to note that while the rent paid by the petitioner for the subject premises at New Delhi was initially fixed at Rs. 50,000/- per month and was later fixed at Rs. 63,500/- per month at the time of said Settlement Agreement, the rent currently being paid by the petitioner for the new premises at Mohali is Rs. 3,25,000/- per month.

¶56

Clearly, the aforesaid Settlement Agreement cannot be construed in such an unreasonable manner as sought to be done by the petitioner, i.e., the

¶57

Signature Not Verified

¶58

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:0 6.09.2026 16:13:36

¶59

Page 12 of 13

¶60

respondents are obligated to compensate her for opening a school at Mohali, at a premises, which is five times the size of the earlier school at New Delhi; and for expenses towards rent being paid by the petitioner, which is five times more than that paid at New Delhi.

¶61

Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that no contempt has been committed by the respondents.

¶62

No merit is found in the present petition.

¶63

The present petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶64

The pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶65

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶66

SEPTEMBER 1, 2026/ au

¶67

Signature Not Verified

¶68

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:0 6.09.2026 16:13:36

¶69

Page 13 of 13

Mrs. Manmeet Sumra Chonker v. Mr. Vipal Kumar Farmah & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Manmeet Sumra Chonker v. Mr. Vipal Kumar Farmah & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rukhsana Bano & Ors. Vs Ashwani Kumar & Ors.

Mukesh Phutela & Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Commissioner & Anr.

Mangal Sain Vs Sri Ram

Prof Sujata Ashwarya Vs Prof MD Mahtab Alam Rizvi & Anr.

Sadruddin Vs Qutabidin & Ors.

Green Estate and Hre Plot Holders Association & Ors. Vs Sh Sabina Avasthy, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hq Central & Anr.

Inder Jit Dua Vs Mr Sanjeev Ahuja Abd Ors.

Muslim Committee Chattarpur Village & Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.