Indu Bala Gupta Vs Ramesh Bahl H.U.F

The present appeal has been filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 dated 22nd October, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘impugned judgment’ ) passed by the ld. District Judge (Commercial Court)-04, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS(Comm.) 1861/2020.

¶11

The brief background is that the Respondent-Mr. Ramesh Bahl (HUF) through Smt. Sakshi Bahl had filed a suit before the Commercial Court seeking recovery of possession, arrears of rent, mesne profits, damages and permanent injunction in respect of two build up shops admeasuring 351 sq. ft. and 250 sq. ft. respectively on the ground floor of the property bearing no. 57/13, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi.

¶12

The possession of the said shops was taken through a Local

¶13

Page 1 of 4

¶14

RFA(COMM) 227/2025

¶15

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2026 at 13:11:32

¶16

Commissioner appointed by the Commercial Court on 29^th January, 2021.

¶17

Insofar as mesne profits is concerned, the Commercial Court has decreed the suit in the following terms:

¶18

“43. In view of my findings on the issues herein above, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed as under:-

¶19

(i)The prayers of the plaintiff qua the relief of possession and permanent injunction have become infructuous and the same are accordingly dismissed.

¶20

(ii)The plaintiff shall be entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 19,05,200/- towards arrears of rent from the defendant for the period 01.02.2020 to 31.10.2020. The defendant shall also be liable to pay the GST on the aforesaid amount.

¶21

(iii)The plaintiff shall also be entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 6,47,568/- towards damages/mesne profits from the defendant for the period of 01.11.2020 to 29.01.2021. The defendant shall also be liable to pay the GST on the aforesaid amount.

¶22

(iv)The defendant shall be entitled to adjust the rent/security amount and GST amount paid to the plaintiff, if any, during the pendency of the suit.

¶23

(v)The plaintiff shall be entitled to simple interest on the aforesaid amount @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.

¶24

(vi) The plaintiff shall also be entitled to cost of the suit.”

¶25

The Appellant is challenging the said impugned judgment in the present appeal. On 24^th April, 2025, after considering the nature of the matter, the Court had appointed Mr. Kanwar Udhay Bhan Singh, ld. Counsel as the Mediator in this case. The mediation proceedings continued for over a period of one year and the parties have now arrived at a settlement.

¶26

The settlement agreement has been presented before the Court and the same is dated 11^th April, 2026. It has been signed by both the parties i.e., Ms.

¶27

Page 2 of 4

¶28

RFA(COMM) 227/2025

¶29

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2026 at 13:11:32

¶30

Indu Bala Gupta and Ms. Sakshi Bahl as also their Counsels-Mr. Sarthak Bhatia and Mr. Rishi Manchanda. Ld. Mediator has also signed the settlement agreement. The parties have settled the disputes on the following broad terms:

¶31

i. That a sum of Rs.21 lakhs would be paid as the settlement amount by the Appellant to the Respondent and the schedule for the same has been agreed upon.

¶32

ii. Further, Rs.3 lakhs in terms of Clause 1(i) and 1(ii) of the settlement agreement has already been paid. The remaining is to be paid and cleared by December, 2026.

¶33

Subject to the above amount being cleared, all proceedings including the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 are either to be withdrawn or compounded. The detailed settlement terms are contained in paragraphs 1 to 16 of the settlement agreement.

¶34

The Court has perused the settlement agreement. The terms of the settlement are valid and legal and there is no impediment in accepting the terms of settlement. Accordingly, in place of the decree already passed in terms of impugned judgment dated 22^nd October, 2024, the suit shall now stand decreed in terms of paragraphs 1 to 16 of the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement shall now form part of the decree.

¶35

The Appellant and the Respondent are granted full refund of the Court Fee which has been deposited by them, subject to the condition that they shall pay Rs.50,000/- each i.e., Rs. 1,00,000/- to the ld. Mediator who has spent a substantial amount of time in enabling the parties to arrive at a settlement. The said amount shall be paid by the parties by 30^th May, 2026 to the ld. Mediator by both parties.

¶36

The Court commends the assistance rendered by the ld. Mediator to

¶37

Page 3 of 4

¶38

RFA(COMM) 227/2025

¶39

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2026 at 13:11:32

¶40

enable the parties to arrive at a settlement.

¶41

The settlement agreement is taken on record.

¶42

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if

¶43

any, are also disposed of.

¶44

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

¶45

MADHU JAIN, J.

¶46

APRIL 13, 2026 dj/ck

¶47

Page 4 of 4

¶48

RFA(COMM) 227/2025

¶49

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2026 at 13:11:32

Indu Bala Gupta v. Ramesh Bahl H.U.F

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indu Bala Gupta v. Ramesh Bahl H.U.F

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Atul Cryogenic Gases Vs M/S Aryaveer Motors Private Limited

Ireo Private Limited Vs Phoenix Family Office Advisers Pvt. Ltd.

Shri Rakesh, Proprietor Vs Shri Tushar Aggarwal and Ors.

The Nanital Bank Limited Vs Amrita Rani & Anr.

Ashwani Dewan & Anr. Vs M/S Miniso Life Style Private Limited

Aravali Printers and Publishers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Silverline Graphic Pvt. Ltd.

Santosh Kumari Vs Shashi Bala

Ok Play India Ltd. and Anr. Vs M/S. Plannco Steel Products

State Vs Rinku

Jagdish Chander Bhatla Vs the Registrar Co-Operative Societies & Ors.

Mandeep Singh Sehrawat & Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Sh. Anil Kumar Vs Registrar of Co-Operative Societies Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Ramesh Chand Vs Public Works Department and Ors.

Smt. Parveen Vs Public Works Department and Ors.