Delhi High Court
Vinod Anand vs Kiran Suri & Ors. on 16 December, 2011
Author: J.R. Midha
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS)No.1833/2008
% Date of decision : 16th December, 2011
VINOD ANAND ..... Plaintiff
Through : Mr. Jaswant Singh, Adv. along
with the plaintiff.
versus
KIRAN SURI & ORS. ...... Defendants
Through : Ms. Suman Rawat, Adv. for
R-3 along with R-3.
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT
I.A. No.13358/2011
1. Vide order dated 30th March, 2009, the suit was referred
to Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre with the
consent of both the parties. The parties amicably resolved all
their disputes before the Delhi High Court Mediation and
Conciliation Centre. The terms of the settlement are recorded
in the settlement agreement dated 16th July, 2009 recorded
before the learned Mediator. The suit was decreed on 28th July,
2009 in terms of the settlement agreement dated 16th July,
2009. As per the said settlement, the parties agreed to sell the
suit property and share the sale proceeds in terms of paras
6(a) and (b) of the settlement agreement.
2. The parties could not sell the suit property and, therefore,
vide order dated 18th August, 2010, this Court appointed a
Local Commissioner to conduct the auction of the suit
property. The parties were also permitted to give the inter-se
bidding.
3. The plaintiff gave the highest bid of `75,25,000/- which
was recorded in the order dated 14th December, 2010 and the
plaintiff was directed to deposit the bid amount with the
Registrar General of this Court within 90 days.
4. Vide order dated 8th March, 2011, this Court permitted
the plaintiff to deposit `62,70,833/- with the Registrar General
towards 5/6th share of the defendants. The plaintiff deposited
the said amount on 11th March, 2011.
5. Vide order dated 16th May, 2011, the Registrar General
was directed to release the amount deposited by the plaintiff
in terms of the settlement agreement and defendant No.3 was
directed to hand over the keys of the suit property to the
plaintiff at the time of receiving the cheque towards her share.
6. With the consent of both the parties, the order dated 16th
May, 2011 was modified on 1st August, 2011. Defendant No.3
handed over the keys of the suit property to the plaintiff on 3rd
September, 2011 before the Registrar of this Court at the time
of receiving the payment in terms of the order dated 1st
August, 2011.
7. The plaintiff has received the vacant possession of the
suit property and the defendants have received the payment
of their share in terms of the order dated 1st August, 2011.
8. The plaintiff has filed this application for modification of
the order dated 1st August, 2011 to the extent the plaintiff is
entitled to the interest accrued on `62,70,833/- and `95,000/-
deposited by the plaintiff on 11th March, 2011 and 16th May,
2011 respectively. The plaintiff's contention is that defendant
No.3 delayed the delivery of possession and, therefore, the
defendants are not entitled to the interest on the amount
deposited by the plaintiff.
9. The contention of defendant No.3 is that she had agreed
to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit
property at the time of receiving payment. It is further
submitted that no time limit for handing over the possession
was fixed under the settlement agreement dated 16th July,
2011 or the orders passed by this Court from time to time.
10. This Court is of the view that the order for payment of
interest is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of this
case because the settlement agreement dated 16th July, 2009
as well as the subsequent orders dated 16th May, 2011 and 1st
August, 2011 passed with the consent of both the parties do
not provide for payment of any interest. The award of interest
at this stage would amount to introducing a new condition
which is not permissible in law.
The application is, therefore, dismissed.
J.R. MIDHA, J
DECEMBER 16, 2011
aj
