Mcd & Anr vs Munshi Ram Harjai & Anr
2010 Latest Caselaw 2501 Del

                                                         UNREPORTABLE


*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                              FAO No.58/2009


                                      Date of Decision: MAY 10, 2010


       MCD & ANR                             ..... Appellants
                           through Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advocate with
                           Mr. Himanshu Upadhyay, Advocate

                    versus


       MUNSHI RAM HARJAI & ANR      ..... Respondents
                   Through Mr. Honey Taneja, Advocate with
                   Mr. F. Hasan, Advocate for R-1.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA

1.     Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
       judgment? No
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the 'Digest'? No

REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

It is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellants that the

present appeal is covered by a Division Bench judgment of this court

passed in FAO(OS) No.571/2006 in the case of Municipal

Corporation of Delhi Versus J P Saini dated September 15, 2006

against the said judgment.

It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the

Municipal Corporation of Delhi though has preferred a Special Leave

Petition to the Supreme Court against the aforementioned judgment

but regardless of that it has made payments to as many as

22 contractors inspite of the fact that they also executed similar works

as were executed by respondent No.1 and awards were passed

against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in their cases too. In all

those 22 cases, no appeal was preferred by the appellants against the

dismissal of the objections filed by them against the award.

In view of the fact that the case admittedly is covered by the

Division Bench judgment of this Court and the further fact that the

Municipal Corporation of Delhi is selectively filing appeals against the

dismissal of objections in the case of some contractors and not doing

so in case of some others, I dismiss the appeal relying upon the

judgment of the Division Bench.

Respondent No.1 shall be entitled to withdraw the amount

which has been deposited by the MCD in this Court.

REKHA SHARMA, J.

MAY 10, 2010 ka