$~5.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 1719/2011 and I.A. 11226/2011, 2618/2012,
25269/2014
M/S NARINJAN DAS ANAND & SONS ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. M.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate
versus
SENBO ENGINEERING LTD & ORS ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Aloke K. Bhattacharya, Advocate
for D-1 to D-7.
Ms. Swati Jain, Advocate for Mr. Anshuman
Sood, Advocate for D-8/DMRC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 18.11.2015
1. On 17.09.2015, counsels for the parties had jointly stated that pursuant to being referred to mediation, they had been able to negotiate a settlement on 16.09.2015. in terms whereof, the defendants No.1 to 7 had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.21 lacs to the plaintiffs in full and final settlement. This had left only the modality of payment to be worked out, for which the case was placed before the learned Mediator on 30.09.2015 and at the request of the counsels for the parties, the case was adjourned to 29.10.2015.
2. Counsel for the plaintiffs states that on 30.09.2015, counsel for the defendants No.1 to 7 was present before the learned Mediator CS(OS) 1719/2011 Page 1 of 3 alongwith Mr. S. Mukherjee, the authorised representative of the defendants No.1 to 7 and they had stated that they could not give a fixed time schedule for making the payment till there were sufficient finances available with them.
3. The authorised representative of the defendants No.1 to 7 is not present today. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the defendants No.1 to 7 states that his instructions are that his clients wish to contest the suit. The said request is turned down in view of the statement of the counsels for the parties recorded on 17.09.2015, that they had successfully negotiated a settlement and the defendants no. 1 to 7 had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.21 lacs to the plaintiff. The only aspect left for negotiations in mediation was the mode of payment. The defendants No.1 to 7 cannot be permitted to renege from the statement recorded on 17.09.2015 under the garb of pleading lack of funds to set down a time schedule for making payment of the agreed amount.
4. Counsel for the plaintiffs states that his client would be satisfied if a decree is passed for a sum of Rs.21 lacs against the defendants No.1 to 7, being the agreed amount and the plaintiffs be then left to seek their remedies for recovery of the said amount alongwith interest, by resorting to execution proceedings, if necessary. CS(OS) 1719/2011 Page 2 of 3
5. The suit is decreed for a sum of Rs.21 lacs in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties and recorded on 17.09.2015. If the said amount is not paid by the defendants No.1 to 7 to the plaintiffs within four weeks from today, then the same shall carry interest payable by the defendants no. 1 to 7 @ 12% per annum from the date of passing of the decree, till realisation.
6. The suit is disposed of alongwith the pending applications.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that as the parties have arrived at a negotiated settlement before issues could be framed in the suit, the plaintiff may be permitted refund of the court fee under Section 16A of the Court Fee Act.
8. In view of the aforesaid submission made by the counsel for the plaintiffs, the Registry is directed to issue a certificate in favour of the plaintiff for refund of 50% of the court fees, as per law.
HIMA KOHLI, J NOVEMBER 18, 2015 rkb/ap CS(OS) 1719/2011 Page 3 of 3