Delhi High Court
Mr. Gurdev Singh Dhindsa & Anr vs M/S Carbon Pod India Limited & Ors on 17 December, 2015
Author: Hima Kohli
19
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 2896/2015
MR. GURDEV SINGH DHINDSA & ANR ..... Plaintiffs
Through : Ms. Diya Kapur, Advocate
versus
M/S CARBON POD INDIA LIMITED & ORS ..... Defendants
Through : Defendant No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 17.12.2015
I.A.No.25343/2015 (joint application u/O XXIII R 3 CPC)
1. Pursuant to the order dated 11.12.2015, the defendant No.2,
who appears in person, hands over a true copy of the Resolution
passed by the Board of Directors of the defendant No.1 on 14.12.2015
at Kolkata, authorizing him to pursue the present suit, including
compromising the same with the plaintiffs. Further, he hands over an
affidavit executed by him as the Director of the defendant
No.1/company, in his personal capacity as also as the power of
attorney holder of the defendant No.3 (wife of the defendant No.2), in
accordance with the terms and conditions recorded in the compromise
application. The said documents are taken on record.
2. The present compromise application has been filed by the
plaintiffs and the defendants stating inter alia that during the
pendency of the suit, they have arrived at an out of court settlement.
3. The details of the terms and conditions of settlement have been
set out in para 2 of the application. The defendant No.2 confirms that
he has cleared the arrears of rent, the outstanding electricity, water
and security guard charges, payable till December, 2015. The
defendant No.2 clarifies that he has paid a draft towards the security
amount to the plaintiffs in lieu of the stale cheques issued earlier.
4. The defendants have undertaken to regularly pay the rent in
respect of the suit premises to the plaintiffs, as specified in the Lease
Deed dated 11.4.2012 on or before the seventh day of each calendar
month and hand over the vacant peaceful possession of the suit
premises to the plaintiffs on or before 31.3.2016. The parties have
further agreed that if the lease deed is mutually extended in writing
for a period of one year, then the defendants shall handover the
vacant peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs on the
agreed date and in the duration of the extended lease, they shall not
make any default in paying the agreed rent.
5. The Court has perused the present application. The same has
been signed by the plaintiffs and the defendant No.2 as the Director of
the defendant No.1, for self and as the power of attorney holder of the
defendant No.3. A copy of the said power of attorney is enclosed with
the present application. The application is supported by the affidavits
of the signatories to the application.
6. As learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendant No.2
jointly state that the parties have arrived at the aforesaid settlement
of their own free will and volition and without any undue influence or
coercion from any quarters, there appears no legal impediment in
accepting the settlement. The parties shall remain bound by the terms
and conditions of the settlement recorded in the application.
7. The suit is decreed in terms of the settlement arrived at and
recorded in the application, while leaving the parties to bear their own
costs.
8. At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that as the
parties have arrived at a negotiated settlement before issues could be
framed in the suit, the plaintiffs may be permitted refund of the court
fees under Section 16A of the Court Fees Act.
9. In view of the aforesaid submission made by the counsel for the
plaintiffs, the Registry is directed to issue a certificate in favour of the
plaintiff for refund of 50% of the court fees, as per law.
10. The dates already fixed in the case, i.e., 23.12.2015 and
16.2.2016 stand cancelled.
File be consigned to the record room.
HIMA KOHLI, J
DECEMBER 17, 2015
sk/ap
