Delhi High Court
M/S Paramount Rice Pvt Ltd vs Asha Ranka on 17 April, 2015
Author: Hima Kohli
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 2207/2014
M/S PARAMOUNT RICE PVT LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through : None.
versus
ASHA RANKA ..... Defendant
Through : Mr. Mohan Vidhani and
Mr. Sunil Aryan, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 17.04.2015
CCP(O)No.38/2015 (by the defendant u/Secs.11 & 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/w Sec. 151 CPC)
1. The present contempt petition has been filed by the defendant
stating inter alia that the plaintiff is in contempt of the order dated
22.9.2014.
2. Mr. Vidhani, learned counsel for the applicant states that on
22.9.2014, it had been duly recorded by the predecessor Bench that
the parties had resolved their disputes and the main terms and
conditions of the settlement were also made a part of the aforesaid
order. Thereafter, the parties were directed to file a joint application
in terms of their settlement. However, the joint application was not
filed by the parties.
3. Finally, on 19.11.2014, it was recorded that a settlement was
not possible in the matter and resultantly, counsel for the defendant
was directed to file a written statement, with a copy to the plaintiff
and admission/denial of documents was directed to be undertaken
before the Joint Registrar on 20.2.2015. On the same date, an order
was passed in I.A.No.13632/2014, an application filed by the plaintiff
under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, recording inter alia that as
agreed, the interim order dated 25.7.2014 was being made absolute
and the defendant would be entitled to use the numerical "1451" and
the packaging material lying with her shall be preserved and produced
in the Court as and when required.
4. Now, the present petition has been filed by the defendant stating
inter alia that the very fact that the plaintiff is insisting on seeking
damages against the defendant, runs contrary to the terms and
conditions of settlement as recorded on 22.9.2014 and therefore, it is
in contempt of the said order.
5. The Court is not persuaded by the submissions made by learned
counsel for the defendant and is disinclined to entertain the present
petition in the light of the subsequent order dated 19.11.2014,
wherein it was clearly recorded that a settlement was not possible in
the case and the defendant was directed to take steps in the suit by
filing a written statement. Records reveal that the defendant has filed
her written statement and the case is listed before the Joint Registrar
on 3.8.2015 for admission/denial of documents.
6. That the compromise had fallen through is quite apparent from a
perusal of the order dated 19.11.2014 when parties were directed to
complete the pleadings in the suit. In the given background, merely
because the plaintiff had declined to sign the compromise application
that learned counsel for the defendant had drafted, got signed from
his client and forwarded to the other side, would not be a ground for
this Court to invoke its powers under Sections 11 & 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
7. The petition is found to be devoid of merits and is dismissed.
HIMA KOHLI, J
APRIL 17, 2015
sk
