Atul Sethi vs Inder Mohan Thapar
2014 Latest Caselaw 6577 Del

*                  HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                               Cont. Cas (C) No.695/2014

                                       Decided on : 8th December, 2014

ATUL SETHI                                            ...... Petitioner
                        Through:     Mr. Anurag Chawla, Advocate.

                            Versus

INDER MOHAN THAPAR                                    ...... Respondent

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

C.M. No.16232/2014 (for delay)

1. This is an application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act seeking condonation of 184 days delay in filing the

contempt petition.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed

and delay of 184 days in filing the contempt petition is condoned as

'sufficient cause' has been shown.

3. The application stands disposed of.

Cont. Cas. (C) No.695/2014

1. This is a contempt petition filed by the petitioner against the

respondent on account of the alleged wilful disobedience of the order

dated 30.4.2012, which reads as under :-

"Parties have settled their disputes before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre on 27th April, 2012. Terms of the settlement have been recorded in the Settlement Agreement on 27th April, 2012. Parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement. Counsel for the defendants assures that documents as mentioned in the Settlement Agreement will be supplied to the plaintiff within two weeks. Plaintiff has handed over a demand draft for Rs.7 lacs to the defendants' counsel, photocopy whereof has been placed on record. Possession of the property has been handed over by the defendants to plaintiff by handing over keys in court.

Suit is disposed of in the above terms. All the pending applications are disposed of as infructuous. Interim orders stand vacated. Since parties have settled their disputes through the process of mediation as envisaged under Section 89 CPC, let court fee be refunded to the plaintiff."

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in terms

of the settlement arrived at between the parties on 27.4.2012, the

respondent was required to perform certain obligations in respect of the

property in question. These details are given in the settlement agreement

running into almost ten pages. The learned counsel has taken the court

through various terms and conditions of the settlement agreement and

contended that the respondent has not fulfilled all of them, as a

consequence of which, he has not followed the memorandum of

settlement in letter and spirit.

3. He has also placed on record photographs to show that because of

non-fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement,

there has been seepage in the ceiling and various other parts of the

property, which were developed by the respondent and, therefore, an

action for contempt be initiated against him.

4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner.

5. The petitioner had filed a suit bearing No.441/2012 against

M/s. Capital Residence Limited. The said suit apparently seems to have

been filed as the petitioner had entered into some collaboration

agreement. The suit was settled before the Delhi High Court Mediation

and Conciliation Centre on 27.4.2012 by reducing various rights and

obligations of the parties into writing. The suit was treated as disposed of

in terms of the settlement.

6. Accordingly, the proper course of remedy open to the petitioner is

to get the decree passed by the court executed through the court in which

the suit was filed.

7. The contempt court is not to go into questions of supervising the

minute details which either of the parties may have agreed to perform in

terms of the settlement. Moreover, there is no direction or order or

judgment which has been passed by the court. Similarly, there has been

no undertaking given by the party. In the absence of any of these things,

it cannot be construed that the respondent is guilty of having willfully

disobeyed any direction, order or judgment or that he is not abiding by

any undertaking given by him thereby being in contempt. Therefore, the

proper course of remedy is to go to the civil court and get the decree

executed.

8. With these observations, the contempt petition is dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

DECEMBER 08, 2014 'AA'