Ravi Kumar vs Umesh Chand Jain
2011 Latest Caselaw 1829 Del

*              THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Judgment delivered on: 29.03.2011


Ex. P. 2/1987, EA (OS) No.161/1987 & EA (OS) No.20/2006 (u/s. 47 &
u/o. 21 R. 58 CPC)


RAVI KUMAR                                       ..... DECREE HOLDER


                                -versus-


UMESH CHAND JAIN                               ..... JUDGMENT DEBTOR


Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Decree Holder   :      Mr. Amit Sibal & Mr. Vinay P. Tripathi,
                               Advocates
For the Judgment Debtor:       Mr. Mohit Mathur & Mr. Anil Jain,
                               Advocates for the LRs of the Judgment
                               Debtor
                               Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate
                               with Mr. Vinay Gupta, Advocate for
                               Objector No.1
                               Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Advocate with
                               Mr. Gaurav Mitra and Ms. Divya Jain,
                               Advocates for Objector No.2

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

1.

Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to Reporters or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J (ORAL) We have called for this execution petition at the joint request of

the parties in view of our order passed in EFA(OS) No.8/1993 on

06.01.2011 disposing of the appeal with certain directions and on

account of pendency of the contempt case no.235/2005.

The parties with the assistance of the counsels have fortunately

been able to agree to a settlement after a prolonged battle. The

Decree Holder has been running from pillar to post to execute the

decree. The settlement will facilitate payment to the Decree Holder

albeit a part of the amount in satisfaction of the decree.

It is agreed as under :-

(I). A sum of Rs.6 Crore will be paid to the Decree Holder spread

over a period of 120 days in the manner mentioned hereinafter in full

and final settlement of the claim of the Decree Holder under the

decree dated 28.10.1986 passed by the Supreme Court of Hongkong

in Suit No.6193/1984.

(II). The burden of payment of Rs.6 Crore to the Decree Holder shall

be borne by the two objectors in the following manner :-

A. Rs.3 Crore will be paid by Futuristic Properties Pvt. Ltd.

A.I Futuristic Properties Pvt. Ltd. undertakes to pay the amount in

two tranches. Rs.25 Lakhs being the first tranche is paid in court

today, vide cheque no.205668 dated 29.03.2011, drawn on The South

Indian Bank Limited, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, favouring Shri Ravi

Kumar. The cheque is undertaken to be good for payment.

A.2 The balance sum of Rs.2,75,00,000/- will be paid on or before

31.07.2011.

B. Similarly, Rs.3 Crore will be paid by M/s. United Estates, a

partnership firm and/or a sister concern of Kunth Properties Pvt. Ltd.

Their liability to pay this amount shall be joint and several.

B.1 The mode and manner of payment is as follows :-

Amount (in Rs.)                    Due date (on or before)
Rs.25 Lakhs                        10.04.2011
Rs.50 Lakhs                        30.04.2011

 Rs.75 Lakhs                      31.05.2011
Rs.75 Lakhs                      30.06.2011
Rs.75 Lakhs                      31.07.2011

(III).   General :-

(a).     all payments whether under heading A or B shall be made either
by bank drafts or pay orders;
(b).     the parties obligated to make payments, in terms of the
aforesaid agreed terms,       undertake to this court to make the said
payment;
(c).     the objections filed by the aforesaid two objectors will stand
dismissed as withdrawn;
(d).     in case the payments referred to above under heading A and/or

B are not made within the time stipulated aforesaid, the amount as per decree alongwith simple interest at 10% p.a. shall be payable by the defaulting party on the base amount arrived at by applying the exchange rate of Rupee to U.S. Dollar, prevalent on the date of actual payment;

(e). the restraint orders passed in this execution petition and as modified by our order dated 06.01.2011 in EFA(OS) No.8/1993 would continue to operate till such time as the amounts referred to under heading A and B are paid. The defaulting party shall continue to suffer the restraint order to the exclusion of the party which complies with its obligations undertaken hereinabove; and

(f). on satisfaction of the claim as aforesaid, the interim orders of attachment would stand vacated.

Ordered as follows :-

The aforesaid terms of agreement are taken on record and

accepted by this court. The execution petition and the objections

stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The parties and their

counsels have appended their signatures in token of acceptance.

The objectors inter se will separately execute a

memorandum of understanding reflective of their agreement that

each will have 50% share in the realization of rear portion of the

property in issue which admeasures 4600 sq.yds.

Needless to say that since the objectors intend to satisfy the

decree passed against the original Judgment Debtor (and now his

legal representatives), they will in turn have the right to recover the

amounts paid under the aforesaid settlement from the estate of the

deceased judgment debtor in accordance with law.

We appreciate the assistance provided by the learned counsels

for the parties and efforts put in by the parties for bringing this long

drawn litigation to an end.

List for compliance on 05.08.2011.

The matter need not be listed before the learned Single Judge

on 03.05.2011 in view of the order passed today.

                                            SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J




MARCH 29, 2011                                  RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
yg