M/S Narinjan Das Anand & Sons vs Senbo Engineering Ltd & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 8580 Del

$~5.
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     CS(OS) 1719/2011 and I.A. 11226/2011, 2618/2012,
      25269/2014

      M/S NARINJAN DAS ANAND & SONS              ..... Plaintiffs
                     Through: Mr. M.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate

                         versus


      SENBO ENGINEERING LTD & ORS                 ..... Defendants
                    Through: Mr. Aloke K. Bhattacharya, Advocate
                    for D-1 to D-7.
                    Ms. Swati Jain, Advocate for Mr. Anshuman
                    Sood, Advocate for D-8/DMRC.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                         ORDER

% 18.11.2015

1. On 17.09.2015, counsels for the parties had jointly stated that

pursuant to being referred to mediation, they had been able to

negotiate a settlement on 16.09.2015. in terms whereof, the

defendants No.1 to 7 had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.21 lacs to the

plaintiffs in full and final settlement. This had left only the modality of

payment to be worked out, for which the case was placed before the

learned Mediator on 30.09.2015 and at the request of the counsels for

the parties, the case was adjourned to 29.10.2015.

2. Counsel for the plaintiffs states that on 30.09.2015, counsel for

the defendants No.1 to 7 was present before the learned Mediator

alongwith Mr. S. Mukherjee, the authorised representative of the

defendants No.1 to 7 and they had stated that they could not give a

fixed time schedule for making the payment till there were sufficient

finances available with them.

3. The authorised representative of the defendants No.1 to 7 is not

present today. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the defendants

No.1 to 7 states that his instructions are that his clients wish to

contest the suit. The said request is turned down in view of the

statement of the counsels for the parties recorded on 17.09.2015, that

they had successfully negotiated a settlement and the defendants no.

1 to 7 had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.21 lacs to the plaintiff. The only

aspect left for negotiations in mediation was the mode of payment.

The defendants No.1 to 7 cannot be permitted to renege from the

statement recorded on 17.09.2015 under the garb of pleading lack of

funds to set down a time schedule for making payment of the agreed

amount.

4. Counsel for the plaintiffs states that his client would be satisfied

if a decree is passed for a sum of Rs.21 lacs against the defendants

No.1 to 7, being the agreed amount and the plaintiffs be then left to

seek their remedies for recovery of the said amount alongwith

interest, by resorting to execution proceedings, if necessary.

5. The suit is decreed for a sum of Rs.21 lacs in terms of the

settlement arrived at between the parties and recorded on

17.09.2015. If the said amount is not paid by the defendants No.1 to

7 to the plaintiffs within four weeks from today, then the same shall

carry interest payable by the defendants no. 1 to 7 @ 12% per annum

from the date of passing of the decree, till realisation.

6. The suit is disposed of alongwith the pending applications.

7. 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 plaintiff may be permitted refund of the court

fee under Section 16A of the Court Fee Act.

8. 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.

HIMA KOHLI, J NOVEMBER 18, 2015 rkb/ap