Allowed

Murari Lal Jain Since Deceased through Lrs v. Deepak Kumar Tyagi

Delhi HC13 May 2026RFA(COMM)/288/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Commercial first appeal against a money/decree was settled: appellants agreed to pay Rs.33 lakh by demand draft before the executing court by 15.11.2026. Court allowed appeal in terms of settlement, modified the decree, kept execution in abeyance, and permitted refund of court fee on satisfaction.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in terms of Settlement Agreement dated 13.05.2026; decree modified; refund of court fee permitted after deposit; execution kept in abeyance till 15.11.2026 or payment.

Murari Lal Jain Since Deceased through Lrs Vs Deepak… — Execution and Attachment | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~293

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 13^th May, 2026

¶3

- RFA(COMM) 288/2026, CM APPL. 28236/2026 & CM APPL. 28237/2026

¶4

MURARI LAL JAIN SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS

¶5

.....APPELLANT

¶6

Through: Mr. A.K. Suri, Mr. Sumbul Nizam, Advs. alongwith appellant in person.

¶7

versus

¶8

DEEPAK KUMAR TYAGI .....RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Dhruv Gautam, Mr. Abhishek Tongar, Advs. alongwith respondent in person.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA

¶10

JUDGMENT

¶11

DINESH MEHTA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

The matter was listed yesterday, when learned counsel for both the parties submitted that there is a possibility of an amicable settlement and both of them would sit and explore the possibility and settle the terms.

¶13

Today, both the counsel alongwith the parties present in the Court submit that they have mutually settled the matter and accordingly, a final amount of Rs.33,00,000/- is agreed to be paid by the appellants to the respondent-plaintiff within a period of six months.

¶14

The Settlement Agreement is taken on record.

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that during the execution proceedings, appellant No.3- Dharmender Jain gave an undertaking that during the pendency of the execution proceedings, he/they

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Digitally Signed By:NAVEEN KUMAR Signing Da te:1 4.05.2026 18:27:45

¶18

RFA(COMM) 288/2026 Page 1 of 4

¶19

shall not sell shop No.100 situated at Sabji Mandi, Ballabhgarh.

¶20

The appellant no.3, present in the Court, assures that he shall abide by said undertaking until the satisfaction of the decree. 6. The appeal is, therefore, allowed in terms of the Settlement Agreement executed between the parties, terms whereof are reproduced hereunder for the sake of ready reference:-

¶21

“The terms of settlement between the Parties are as under -

¶22

a. That the Second Party has filed an appeal, RFA (Commercial) No. 288 of 2026 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi against the Final Judgment & Decree dated 03 January 2025 passed by the Court of Sh. Umed Singh Grewal, Ld. District Judge (Commercial Court – 02), North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (the "Trial Court").

¶23

b. The Hon'ble High Court had adjourned the appeal on 12 May 2026 for 13 May 2026 at the join request of the Parties to enable them to explore any possibility of settlement.

¶24

c. The Parties and their respective Counsels discussed the proposal and counter - proposal and arrived at a final figure of INR 33,00,000/- (Indian Rupees ThirtyThree Lacs Only) as the full and final settlement amount towards satisfaction of the Final Judgment and Decree passed by the Ld. Trial Court.

¶25

d. The Second Party undertakes that they shall deposit the INR 33,00,000/-by way of a demand draft before 15th November 2026 before the Court of Sh. Naveen Kumar, Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad (the "Executing Court"), where the execution proceedings in the Execution Petition No. 89 of 2026 are pending.

¶26

e. That the Second Party undertakes before this Hon'ble Court that they shall remain bound by the statement made by the Appellant No. 3 (Dharmender

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed By:NAVEEN KUMAR Signing Da te:1 4.05.2026 18:27:45

¶29

RFA(COMM) 288/2026 Page 2 of 4

¶30

Kumar Jain) on behalf of all the Appellants / Second Party before the Ld. Executing Court on 13 March 2026 and shall not dispose off property identified as Shop No. 100, located at sabzi Mandi, Ballabhgarh, Faridabad, Haryana (the "Shop No. 100) till the sum of INR 33,00,000/- is deposited before the Ld. Executing Court before 15 November 2026.

¶31

f. That in case the Second Party does not deposit the agreed sum of INR 33,00,000/- before the Ld. Executing Court, the First Party shall be at liberty to institute contempt proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willful violation of the present Settlement Agreement before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and shall also be at liberty to proceed with the Execution Petition No. 89 of 2026 in accordance with law.

¶32

g. That additionally, in the event of default on part of the Second Party, the Second Party shall have no objection to the auction of Shop No. 100 towards realization of the decretal amount as awarded by the Ld. Trial Court.

¶33

h. That if the Second Party deposits a sum of INR 33,00,000/- before the Ld. Executing Court before 15 November 2026, the First Party shall not have any further claims against the Second Party and the First Party shall withdraw the Execution Petition No. 89 of 2026 pending before the Ld. Executing Court.

¶34

i. The Parties have signed this Settlement Agreement out of their own free will and after understanding the contents of this Settlement Agreement in vernacular, which has been explained to them in Hindi language by their respective counsels.”

¶35

The judgment and decree dated 03.01.2025 passed by the Trial Court stand modified in terms of the settlement. The Settlement Agreement dated 13.05.2026 shall form part of the judgment and order instant.

¶36

A decree in terms of the settlement be drawn.

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed By:NAVEEN KUMAR Signing Da te:1 4.05.2026 18:27:45

¶39

RFA(COMM) 288/2026 Page 3 of 4

¶40

In case the appellants fail to pay or deposit the amount of Rs. 33,00,000/- in the Executing Court by 15.11.2026, the present order shall stand recalled and the judgment and decree, as passed by the Trial Court shall stand revived. The same shall be enforceable in accordance with law; in the event of failure to pay the requisite amount by 15.11.2026, the respondent-decree holder shall not only be entitled to execute the decree but shall also be free to move an application before this Court for initiating contempt proceedings against the appellants.

¶41

Since the parties have settled the matter, the appellant shall be entitled for refund of the Court fee in accordance with the Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2026 that has been brought by way of notification dated 06.03.2026, whereby Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 has been amended.

¶42

The Court fee shall, however, be refunded only after 15.11.2026, when the appellant is able to show that the decree has been satisfied in the terms of the order instant.

¶43

The appeal stands disposed of alongwith all pending applications. The Executing Court shall keep the execution proceedings in abeyance, until the amount of Rs.33,00,000/- is paid/deposited or until 15.11.2026, whichever is earlier.

¶44

DINESH MEHTA JUDGE

¶45

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGE

¶46

MAY 13, 2026/ sr

¶47

RFA(COMM) 288/2026 Page 4 of 4

¶48

Signature Not Verified

¶49

Digitally Signed By:NAVEEN KUMAR Signing Da te:1 4.05.2026 18:27:45

Murari Lal Jain Since Deceased through Lrs v. Deepak Kumar Tyagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murari Lal Jain Since Deceased through Lrs v. Deepak Kumar Tyagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Uttam Human Resource Pvt. Ltd. Vs R G Mall Welfare Association & Ors.

State Bank of India Vs Sachin Kumar

Kamal Gupta Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Bhhutporv Ardh Sainik Kalyan Canteen/ Ex-Ardh Sainik Kalyan Canteen, Vs Ardh Sainik Canteen & Anr.

Anil Goel Vs Orient Links Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Cri Limited Vs Pran Nath Mehta & Ors.

Mr Ankit Gupta Vs M/S Ganpati Trading Co. & Anr.

M/S Loco Smart Fit (through Its Proprietor Mrs. Snigdha Harish) Vs Bank of Baroda

Ca Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Officer & Anr.

Monga Tradex Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 17 1 Delhi & Anr.

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 Vs Veritas Storages Singapore Pte Ltd.

Seema Katar Vs Income Tax Officer Circle Int Tax 2 (1)2 New Delhi & Anr.

Manpower Group Services India Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central CIRCLE-2 & Ors.

National Agricultural Coop.Mkt Vs Commissioner of Income Tax New