Delhi High Court

Ghanshyam Dass vs North Delhi Municipal ... on 23 January, 2017

$~6 to 41, 43 to 47 & 58

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                        Date of Judgment: 23.01.2017


+      W.P.(C) 10055/2015

       GHANSHYAM DASS                                                  ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

       NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 10008/2015

       RAKESH KUMAR                                                    ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 10026/2015

       MONIKA                                                          ..... Petitioner

WP(C) Nos. 10055/2015, 10008/2015, 10028/2015, 10032-33/205, 10046/2015, 10051/2016, 10053/2015, 10057-58/2015, 10060/2015, 10064/2015, 11016-17/2015,11025/2015, 11027-28/2015, 11429/2015 11446/2015, 11449/2015, 11471/2015, 11531-32/2015, 11737/2015, 11780/2015, 11784-85/2015, 11789/2015, 11792-93/2015, 11796-97/2015, 11799/2015, 11803/2015, 11805/2015, 3891/2016,

Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir, Advocates.

versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Suprret Bambra, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 10028/2015

       NISHANT                                                         ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 10032/2015

       CHIRAG ALUDEEN                                                  ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

+ W.P.(C) 10033/2015

BRAHAM PRAKASH ..... Petitioner

Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir, Advocates.

versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 10046/2015

       LAXMI NARAIN GUPTA                                              ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 10051/2015

       RANBIR SINGH                                                    ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 10053/2015

       ANIL KUMAR BHARDWAJ                                             ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

       NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

                                                                            ..... Respondent

                               Through         Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for
                                               North DMC with Ms.Suprret Bambra,
                                               Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 10057/2015

       KUSUM                                                           ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 10058/2015

       LALITA GARG                                                     ..... Petitioner

Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir, Advocates.

versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 10060/2015

       ANURAG RANA                                                     ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 10064/2015

       JASWANT SINGH                                                   ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION .... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

+ W.P.(C) 11016/2015

SITA RAM SHARMA ..... Petitioner

Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir, Advocates.

versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 11017/2015

       ANIL KUMAR                                                      ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 11025/2015

       RAVINDER KUMAR                                                  ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 11027/2015

       GURMUKH BHARDWAJ                                                ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 11028/2015

       AMIT SEHRAWAT                                                   ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 11429/2015

       VIDYA DEVI                                                      ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 11446/2015

       NARESH KUMAR                                                    ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 11449/2015

       ATUL GUPTA                                                      ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

+ W.P.(C) 11471/2015

SANJAY ..... Petitioner

Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir, Advocates.

versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 11531/2015

       SANDEEP GARG                                                    ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 11532/2015

       MR. CHARANJEET                                                  ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 11737/2015

       SUMIT VERMA                                                     ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 11780/2015

       HARINDER SINGH                                                  ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Ms.Renu Gupta, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 11784/2015

       SURENDER KUMAR VATS                                             ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 11785/2015

       JITENDER SINGH                                                  ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 11789/2015

       NIRMALA                                                         ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 11792/2015

       VIPIN KUMAR GUPTA                                               ..... Petitioner

Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir, Advocates.

versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Ms.Renu Gupta, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 11793/2015

       ANIL KUMAR                                                      ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Ms.Renu Gupta, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 11796/2015

       ARVIND KUMAR SINGH                                              ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Ms.Renu Gupta, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 11797/2015

       HEMRAJ SHARMA                                                   ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Ms.Renu Gupta, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 11799/2015

       RAJESH GUPTA                                                    ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Ms.Renu Gupta, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 11803/2015

       AMIT VERMA                                                      ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Suprret Bambra, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 11805/2015

       KULDEEP VERMA                                                   ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Ms.Renu Gupta, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 3891/2016

       BABITA BHARDWAJ                                                 ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 4035/2016

       RAJEEV MITTAL                                                   ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 4061/2016

       SATBIR VATS                                                     ..... Petitioner

Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir, Advocates.

versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 4062/2016

       ASHOK KUMAR                                                     ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

+      W.P.(C) 4079/2016

       SURENDER KUMAR VERMA                                            ..... Petitioner

                               Through         Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Pundir, Advocates.

                               versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

+ W.P.(C) 11026/2015

GANGA RAM SHARMA ..... Petitioner

Through Ms.Anusuya Salwan and Mr.Abhishek Pundir, Advocates.

versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for North DMC with Ms.Supreet Bambra, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (oral)

1 This order shall dispose of this batch of writ petitions.

2 At the outset, it is pointed out that a bunch of similarly placed

contractors had filed certain suits which had been decreed in their

favour against which a Regular First Appeal had been filed. That

Regular First Appeal had been disposed of by a Single Bench of this

Court on 01.12.2016 (RFA No.786/2016); it was based on the consent

order dated 17.11.2016 arrived inter-se the parties

3 This Court notes that these writ petitions arise out of the

grievances of the petitioner who were and are still operating as

contractors and doing works for the North Delhi Municipal WP(C) Nos. 10055/2015, 10008/2015, 10028/2015, 10032-33/205, 10046/2015, 10051/2016, 10053/2015, 10057-58/2015, 10060/2015, 10064/2015, 11016-17/2015,11025/2015, 11027-28/2015, 11429/2015 11446/2015, 11449/2015, 11471/2015, 11531-32/2015, 11737/2015, 11780/2015, 11784-85/2015, 11789/2015, 11792-93/2015, 11796-97/2015, 11799/2015, 11803/2015, 11805/2015, 3891/2016,

Corporation. All the petitioners are duly registered contractors

registered with the respondent Corporation and have been carrying out

various works of the respondent. The petitioners having completed

the said works to the satisfaction of the respondent for which bills had

been prepared and certified but complete payment not having been

received by the petitioners had accordingly been constrained to file

these petitions. Contention of the petitioners being that they are

claiming only those bills which had been duly certified for payment

and for which no amount had been paid.

4 The stand of the respondent was that there is a specific clause in

the agreement which is binding upon the parties and which was to the

effect that the payment of the passed bills will be subject to the

availability of funds in particular head of account from time to time

and the payments shall be made strictly on queue basis i.e. first the

past liabilities will be cleared and after the release of payments for

past bills only then the case of the petitioners would be considered;

interest would also not be payable.

5 The relevant extract of Clause 7 of the 'General Conditions of

Contract for Municipal Corporation of Delhi Works' highlighted by

the respondent Corporation is reproduced herein as under:-

"The payment of passed bills will be subject to availability of funds in particular head of account from time to time in MCD. Payment of bills shall be strictly on Queue basis i.e. first the past liabilities will be cleared and after that the release of payment for passed bills be in order of the demand received at HQ under particular head of accounts. No interest shall be payable to the contractor in case of delay in payment on account of non-availability of funds in the particular head of account of MCD."

6 This being the stand of the respondent Corporation, the petition

had progressed and the matter was to be taken up for final hearing.

7 However, at this stage, as noted supra, attention of this Court

has been drawn to the judgment passed by the Single Bench of this

Court in RFA No. 786/2016; these RFAs had arisen out of decrees

which had enured in favour of such like contractors who had preferred

to file civil suits instead of filing writ petitions.

8 In the course of these proceedings on 07.09.2016, the additional

submission of the respondent was noted which was that the payments

being asked for by the petitioner are under 'non-planned head' and the

petitioner will have to stand in queue along with others; submission of

the petitioner was that there is a mis-utilization of funds in the 'non-

planned head' and the money under the 'non-planned head' is being

mis-used i.e. for purpose other than those purposes for which it is

required to be used. The respondent had been directed to place on

record an affidavit stating the amounts expended in the 'non-planned

head'. This affidavit is on record and the details of money sought to

be expended in the 'non-planned head' have been given.

9 Court is of the view that the orders passed in RFA No. 786/2016

this Court is of the view that these petitions can also be disposed off

on the same terms and conditions as there is no dispute to the fact that

the case of these petitioners is similar to those who were parties in the

RFA.

10 The terms of the consent order passed on 17.11.2016 and

reproduced in RFA No. 786/2016 read as:-

"(i) The appellants shall file fresh compilations, complete in all respects in respect of the respondents and the other contractors, irrespective of whether they have filed any appeals/suits of recovery or not, so that there is a clarity about their priority in the wait list.

(ii) The appellants undertake to strictly adhere to the timeline mentioned in the compilation , for releasing payments to the respondents.

(iii) No payment shall be released out of turn by the appellants.

(iv) The appellants shall ensure that the budget for release of amounts under the head of Non-Plan Expenditure is increased on a regular basis so that the release of payments can be expedited to the respondents and other contractors in the wait list, even prior to the dates of priority mentioned against their names.

(v) The appellants shall upload the compilation on their websites for ease of access and update it regularly at the end of each month for the respondents and others to know what their status is in the wait list.

(vi) Having regard to the fact that the appellants expect the respondents to stay their hands and not pursue their legal remedies for execution of the impugned judgments and decrees for a period mentioned hereinafter, it is agreed that interest shall be payable to the respondents on the principal amount after the expiry of three years and ninety days reckoned from the date the concerned Division had passed the bills of the respondents for payment. In other words, a cushion of 90 days is being provided to the Head Quarters of both the appellants for completing the administrative work of receiving and diarising the bills received from different Divisions and preparing a combined list for payment and it is agreed that for the said period, no interest shall be payable to the respondents.

(vii) It is further agreed that the appellants will not be liable to pay interest on the principal amounts payable to the respondents under the impugned judgments and decrees, for a period of three years reckoned from the date of expiry of 90 days mentioned above.

(viii) However, immediately on expiry of three years as noted above, if the amounts remain outstanding for any reason whatsoever, the appellants shall pay interest @ 9% per annum on the principal amount to the respondents, for the remaining period, till realization.

(ix) It is further agreed that the aforesaid arrangement of payment of interest by the appellants @ 9% per annum on the outstanding principal amount to the respondents shall continue only for a period of two years, reckoned from the end of the third year as mentioned in clause (vii) hereinabove.

(x) If the amounts remain payable by the appellants even thereafter, the respondents shall be entitled to seek legal recourse for execution of the impugned judgments and decrees and claim interest on the decretal amount from day one.

(xi) The respondents undertake that in view of the settlement arrived at with the appellants, as recorded RFA786/2016 & RFA 192/2016 Page 4 of 9 above, they shall not take any steps to file execution petitions in respect of the impugned judgments and decrees, subject matter of the present appeals, for the period mentioned hereinabove.

(xii) As for the already pending execution petitions, orders passed in these proceedings shall be placed on record so that they can be disposed of by the concerned courts on the basis of the consent order, with liberty granted to the respondents to file fresh execution petitions in case of default on the part of the appellants, as has been detailed above."

11 Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation (Mr. Sunil Goel)

was also the counsel who had appeared before the RFA Court.

12 This consent order arrived at on 17.11.2016 inter-se those

contractors and the Corporation will thus bind the parties in the

present petitions as well. The respondent Corporation will strictly

adhere to the timeline for releasing payment to the petitioners which is

to the effect that besides the fact that no payment shall be released out

of turn to any party, a period of three years and 90 days reckoned from

the date the concerned Division has passed the bills of the Contractors

for payment shall be the period from which the payment shall start to

be made to the contractors. In other words, a cushion of 90 days is

agreed to be provided to the Head Quarter/respondent for completing WP(C) Nos. 10055/2015, 10008/2015, 10028/2015, 10032-33/205, 10046/2015, 10051/2016, 10053/2015, 10057-58/2015, 10060/2015, 10064/2015, 11016-17/2015,11025/2015, 11027-28/2015, 11429/2015 11446/2015, 11449/2015, 11471/2015, 11531-32/2015, 11737/2015, 11780/2015, 11784-85/2015, 11789/2015, 11792-93/2015, 11796-97/2015, 11799/2015, 11803/2015, 11805/2015, 3891/2016,

all administrative works of receiving and diarising the bills received

from different Divisions and preparing the combined list for payment.

Up to three years & 90 days, no interest would be payable by the

Department to the contractors. However, even if after the expiry of

three years, the amounts remain outstanding, the respondent

Corporation will pay interest @ 9% per annum on the principal

amount to the contractors for the remaining period till realization. The

aforesaid arrangement for payment of interest by the respondent

Corporation @ 9% on the outstanding principal amount to the

contractors shall continue only for a period of two years reckoned

from the end of the third year as mentioned in the sub-clause (vii) and

if this amount remains payable by the respondent Corporation, even

thereafter the contractors will be entitled to seek legal recourse by

filing an execution of the entire amount and this order will be treated

as a decree which would then become executable. The respondent

Corporation has also ensured that the budget for realization of amount

under the head of 'non-planned expenditure' will be increased so that

the release of payment to the contractors can be expedited in the wait

list even prior to the date of priority mentioned against their names.

This Court thus notes that the consent order of 17.11.2016 reproduced

in RFA No.786/2016 is modified to the extent that there being no

judgment and decree in favour of the contractors in the present case;

however all other terms and conditions which the respondent (as

appellants in the RFA) has agreed and undertaken will be binding

upon them and this order shall be treated as a decree which in the

eventuality of non-payment (as per the terms detailed supra) shall

become executable.

13 Needless to state that this order passed by this Court will be

fully adhered to in true letter and spirit by respondent No. 1 and will

thus not constrain any party to approach the Court on this count.

14 No further orders are called for on these petitions. They are

disposed of.

INDERMEET KAUR, J

JANUARY 23, 2017 A

Supreme Court Judgments

High Court Judgments

Campus Buzz

Library

Legal Education

More

Circulars & Notices

Ghanshyam Dass vs North Delhi Municipal ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 387 Del

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

Ghanshyam Dass vs North Delhi Municipal ...2017 Latest Caselaw 387 Del

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

Ghanshyam Dass vs North Delhi Municipal ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 387 Del