The Vaish Co-Operative Adarsh ... vs M/S Lucky Star Estate India(P) ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 294 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+               CS(OS) 2063/2010 IAs No.13522/2010. 2330/2013
                & 750/2014

                                    Date of Decision: 13th January, 2015
IN THE MATTER OF

THE VAISH CO-OPERATIVE ADARSH BANK LIMITED            ..... Plaintiff
                   Through : Mr. Lalit Gupta, Ms.Payal Gupta &
                   Ms.Garima Goel, Advocates with Mr.T.M.Taneja,
                   CEO of the plaintiff in person

                        versus

M/S LUCKY STAR ESTATE INDIA(P) LTD. & ORS.      ..... Defendants
                    Through : Mr.P.D.Gupta, Advocate for D-1
                    Mr.Dinesh Garg and Ms.Uditi Khattar,
                    Advocates for D-2 to D-7

CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI


HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff/Bank against

the defendant No.1 and the defendants No.2 to 7, praying inter alia for

passing a decree of permanent injunction in its favour, restraining them

from interfering in its possession, access, ingress and egress in respect of

the two flats situated on the second and third floors of the building

popularly known as Virat Cinema Complex (Commercial Area), Dakshin

Puri, New Delhi and measuring 2999.66 sq.ft. and 3719.03 sq.ft.

respectively. The plaintiff has also prayed for a decree of permanent

injunction against the defendants, restraining them from dealing in the

suit premises in any manner and/or carrying out any demolition,

additions/alterations/modifications etc. therein.

2. During the pendency of the present proceedings, on 4.9.2013, a

statement was made by learned counsel for the defendants that the

defendants No.2 to 7 were likely to settle the matter with the defendant

No.1/maintenance agency. As a result, the parties were referred to the

Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre for negotiating a

settlement. Pursuant thereto, a Settlement Agreement dated 5.9.2013

was placed on record. The terms and conditions of the settlement

between the defendant No.1 on the one hand and the defendants No.2 to

7 on the other hand, were set out in para 6 of the Agreement,

whereunder it was agreed between the parties that the defendants No.2

to 4 would pay a sum of Rs.52 lacs to the defendant No.1 to settle their

interse disputes. The said amount is stated to have been paid to the

defendant No.1.

3. Counsel for the defendant No.1 submits that the defendants No.2 to

7 have paid the arrears towards the maintenance of the subject flats upto

30.9.2013 and his client reserves its right to recover the amounts

payable thereafter, in accordance with law.

4. Counsel for the plaintiff/Bank states that the plaintiff is in

possession of the suit properties on the basis of a Mortgage Deed

executed in its favour by Lt.Sh.Puran Singh Sethi, the predecessor-in-title

of the defendants No.2 to 7 and the mortgagor had defaulted in repaying

the loans disbursed by the plaintiff to him. The amounts that are due and

payable to the plaintiff Bank have been crystallized in an Award dated

14.1.2002, read with a Corrigendum dated 30.1.2002, totaling to a sum

of Rs.1,40,53,906/- along with interest @ 18% p.a., till realization. The

said Award and Corrigendum were challenged in the court of law and have

attained finality by now.

5. Counsel for the defendants No.2 to 7 does not deny the fact that

the predecessor-in-title of his clients had mortgaged the subject premises

in favour of the plaintiff/Bank for advances received. He submits that his

clients do not have any objection if the suit is decreed in favour of the

plaintiff in terms of the reliefs sought as the defendants No.2 to 7 have

never interfered in the possession, or the ingress and egress of the

plaintiff/Bank in the suit premises at any time and nor have the said

defendants tried to sell, alienate, or create any rights therein. Lastly, it is

submitted that the defendants No.2 to 7 have not carried out any

additions, alterations etc. in the suit premises or tried to demolish the

same as alleged. Similar submission is made by learned counsel for the

defendant No.1.

6. In view of the aforesaid submissions, with the consent of the

parties, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff/Bank and

against the defendants, in terms of the prayer clauses (i) to (iii), along

with the pending applications, while leaving the parties to bear their own

costs.

7. Needless to state that if so inclined, the defendants No.2 to 7 shall

be at liberty to approach the plaintiff/Bank for negotiating a settlement

directly, or by approaching the Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation

Centre, in respect of the outstanding amounts payable by their

predecessor-in-title and redeem the suit properties.

(HIMA KOHLI) JUDGE JANUARY 13, 2015 mk