Full Judgement
Delhi High Court
Rajiv Bajaj And Anr vs Suruchi Bhasin @ Suruchi Bajaj And Anr. on 30 July, 2024
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher, Amit Bansal
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 30.07.2024
+ RFA(OS) 27/2024 & CM APPL. 33658/2024
RAJIV BAJAJ AND ANR .....Appellants
Through: Mr Jaspreet Singh Rai, Ms Jai Kapur
and Ms Bhawana Pandey, Advocates.
versus
SURUCHI BHASIN @ SURUCHI
BAJAJ AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr Saurabh Bhargavan, Mr Chinju
Saurabh, Mr Nihil S Nair and Mr Aby
Abraham, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2024.
2. The impugned judgment and decree proceeds on the basis of a Settlement Agreement dated 30.11.2022 [in short, "SA"], arrived at between the disputants, under the aegis of the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
3. The SA entered into between the disputants concerns the following three (03) immovable properties:
(i) D-35, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi-110024 [in
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH Signing Date:13.08.2024 16:45:33 RFA(OS) 27/2024 Page 1 of 4 short, "Amar Colony Property"].
(ii) Shop No.1274/3 situated in Laxmi Market, Subhash Road, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031 [in short, "Laxmi Market Property"].
(iii) Commercial property/Shop bearing No.99, Banarasi Dass Building, Subhash Road, Gandhi Nagar, New Delhi-110032 [in short, "Gandhi Nagar Property"].
4. Concededly, as per the SA, the Gandhi Nagar Property had to be sold and the proceeds had to be distributed and utilized in accordance with the terms of the SA.
4.1 We are informed by the counsel for the parties, concerning which there is no dispute, that the Gandhi Nagar Property has been sold and the proceeds have been distributed as agreed, as per the terms of the SA.
5. Furthermore, insofar as the Amar Colony Property is concerned, the appellants (i.e., the defendants in the suit) were required to vacate the same and handover the vacant possession to the respondents (i.e., plaintiffs in the suit/ the sisters).
6. The appellants, concededly, have not complied with the terms of the SA.
7. Admittedly, insofar as the Laxmi Market Property is concerned, the same is in the possession of the appellants/ defendants.
8. It is also not disputed that insofar as the Amar Colony Property is concerned, the appellants/defendants had, apparently, entered into an agreement to sell, dated 07.08.2021, with the brother-in-law of appellant no. 1 one, Mr Gurpreet Singh.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH Signing Date:13.08.2024 16:45:33 RFA(OS) 27/2024 Page 2 of 4
8.1 We are informed that Mr Gurpreet Singh has filed a civil suit in the District Court at Saket, in which an injunction order dated 09.02.2023 has been obtained, restraining the appellants/defendants from creating third- party interests with respect to the Amar Colony Property.
9. Strangely, this fact was not disclosed by the appellants/defendants at the time when the SA was executed.
10. Even more strangely, when an application was preferred under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 [in short, CPC] for vacating the order dated 09.02.2023, the details concerning the SA was not mentioned in the said application.
11. While issuing notice in the appeal on 30.05.2024, Mr Jaspreet Singh Rai, learned counsel, who appears on behalf appellants, had indicated to us that his only grievance concerning the impugned judgment and decree was the observations made in paragraph 15 of the said judgment. 11.1 The relevant part of paragraph 15 of the said judgment is extracted hereafter:
"15. Now, when the defendant is expected to honour his part of the Agreement, it is quite apparent that he wants to backtrack after having availed partial benefit under the Settlement. The conduct of the defendant is purely malafide as there is no reason shown for retraction of the Settlement. Moreover, once a Settlement has been endorsed and acted upon, the necessary corollary is passing of a Decree in terms of the Settlement. Therefore, the reluctance of the defendant to perform his part of the Settlement, cannot be any basis for not passing a Decree in terms of the mediated Settlement dated 30.11.2022 which had been duly accepted and partly acted upon by the parties."
12. The counsel who appears on behalf of the respondents has, in the course of his submissions, adverted to the facts which have been noted by us hereinabove.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH Signing Date:13.08.2024 16:45:33 RFA(OS) 27/2024 Page 3 of 4
13. Clearly, according to us, the appellants have been, to say the very least, economic with the disclosure of complete facts.
14. Therefore, in our view, the observations made by the learned Single Judge are not without basis.
15. There has been an attempt by the appellants to work around the settlement arrived at between the parties.
16. We are informed that a contempt action has been initiated by the respondents. Furthermore, the appellants have also filed a contempt action. Both contempt actions are pending adjudication.
17. Therefore, we need not dilate, at this juncture, as regards the conduct of the parties and more particularly, as to whether there is any violation of the order(s) or the direction(s) of the Court.
18. Insofar as the above-captioned appeal is concerned, in our view, no interference is called for, having regard to the fact that it is based on a settlement that has morphed into a consent decree.
19. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
20. The pending application shall stand disposed of.
21. The parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the judgment.
RAJIV SHAKDHER (JUDGE)
AMIT BANSAL (JUDGE) JULY 30, 2024/rt
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH Signing Date:13.08.2024 16:45:33 RFA(OS) 27/2024 Page 4 of 4
