Delhi High Court
Subhash Chand Tyagi vs Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd on 10 May, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
39.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 681/2010
Date of order: 10th May, 2011
SUBHASH CHAND TYAGI ..... Appellant
Through in person.
Versus
DCM SHRIRAM INDUSTRIES LTD ..... Respondents
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
SANJIV KHANNA, J.:
We have heard Subhash Chand Tyagi, the appellant in person.
He submits that he was under confusion and had no intention to
compromise or settle the matter and, therefore, the two orders dated
13th April, 2010 and 17th May, 2010 passed by the learned single
Judge should be set aside.
2. The appellant herein is not an illiterate person, but a practicing
Advocate. He had earlier worked with the respondent company from
LPA No. 681/2011 Page 1 of 5
1972 till 4th May, 1987. It was alleged that he had fabricated bills for
withdrawing money. By an ex-parte order dated 14th September,
2011, the Labour Court allowed the application filed by the appellant
under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondent‟s
application for setting aside of the ex-parte order was dismissed.
Being aggrieved, the respondent company had filed a writ petition in
Delhi High Court in the year 2004 and the said writ petition had
remained pending till 2010.
3. Order dated 13th April, 2010 records the aforesaid facts and
proceedings in detail including the statements/contentions made by
the respondent and the contention of the appellant. Thereafter, it is
recorded that the negotiations took place between the parties and it
was agreed that on payment of Rs.1,00,000/-, the appellant would
have no claim whatsoever against the respondent under the impugned
order or otherwise. Statement of the appellant was also recorded on
oath before the learned single Judge. The said statement reads as
under:-
"Statement of Shri Subhash Chand Tyagi,
Advocate, aged about 57 years S/o Sh. N.K.
Tyagi, R/o C-1, Plot No.191, Ext.II, Shalimar
Garden, Sahibabad, Distt. Ghaziabad.
ONSA
LPA No. 681/2011 Page 2 of 5
I am the respondent in the above named
petition. I have settled all my disputes and
differences with the petitioner. I withdraw my
application under Section 17B of the I.D. Act. I
have agreed to receive a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lac) only from the petitioner within
one week of today in full and final settlement of
all my claims against the petitioner under the
order impugned in this petition or otherwise. I
affirm that I have not filed any other case /
proceedings / complaint against the petitioner or
its Directors / officers and the application /
complaint / other proceedings, if any, filed
by me against the petitioner or its Directors /
officers shall stand withdrawn / dismissed in
terms of the settlement arrived at by me today. I
have further no objection to the petitioner
withdrawing Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs
and Fifty Thousand) deposited before the
Labour Court in proceedings initiated by me for
enforcement of order impugned in this petition or
any other amounts deposited with any other
courts / foras in the dispute with me."
4. On the basis of the statement made by the appellant,
Rs.2,50,000/- deposited by the respondent was allowed to be
withdrawn with a direction that the appellant would be paid
Rs.1,00,000/- within one week in full and final settlement of all his
claims under the impugned order or otherwise.
5. Thereafter, the appellant had filed an application for review and
LPA No. 681/2011 Page 3 of 5
recall of the order dated 13th April, 2010, which was dismissed vide
order dated 17th May, 2010. In the said order it has been recorded as
under:-
"Considering that the respondent no.1 is now a
practicing advocate, attempt was made on 9th
April, 2010 for amicable settlement of the matter.
Certain proposals were exchanged and the matter
was adjourned to 13th April, 2010. On 13th April,
2010 also negotiations were held. The petitioner
gave its last offer. The respondent no.1 was not
agreeable to the same and as such arguments
were heard on the pending application of the
respondent no.1 under Section 17B of the ID Act.
After hearing the arguments and not finding any
merit therein, the order of dismissal of the said
application was pronounced in the court and the
writ petition ordered to be listed in the category
of „Finals‟.
Thereafter the respondent no.1 had mentioned
the matter and informed that the last offer earlier
given by the petitioner was acceptable to him. As
such, the counsel for the petitioner was sent for
and the settlement recorded and in the
circumstances, the order under Section 17B
earlier pronounced not typed.
However, the respondent no.1 who on that
date also was appearing in person did not come
to sign his statement.
Now, the present application has been filed
and the contents whereof are contrary to what
had transpired in the court on 13th April, 2010."
6. The appellant cannot be permitted to go behind the statement
made on oath, which was recorded in the Court. Judicial proceedings
must have sanctity and the statements made at the Bar and on oath
LPA No. 681/2011 Page 4 of 5
have to be respected and obeyed. As noticed above, the appellant
herein is a practicing advocate and, therefore, it cannot be said that he
was not aware and did not understand the bargain and the settlement.
Order dated 17th May, 2010 reflects the conduct of the appellant.
7. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the present
appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed without any order as to
costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
MAY 10, 2011
NA/VKR
