Delhi High Court
North Delhi Municipal ... vs Kuldeep Singh on 14 March, 2017
$~18, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 128/2017 and CM APPL. 4368/2017
RFA 51/2017 and CM APPL. 1710/2017
RFA 54/2017
RFA 60/2017 and CM APPL. 1957/2017
RFA 63/2017 and CM APPL. 2045/2017
RFA 64/2017 and CM APPL. 2061/2017
RFA 946/2016
RFA 952/2016
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.
..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel with
Ms. Supreet Bimbra, Advocate
versus
KULDEEP SINGH .... Respondent in RFA 128/2017
DEEPAK MANCHANDA ..... Respondent in RFA 51/2017
JYOTI BALA ..... Respondent in RFA 54/2017
DEEPAK MANCHANDA ..... Respondent in RFA 60/2017
DEEPAK MANCHANDA ..... Respondent in RFA 63/2017
KARTAR SINGH ..... Respondent in RFA 64/2017
VIKAS VERMA ..... Respondent in RFA 946/2017
VIKAS VERMA ..... Respondent in RFA 952/2017
Through: Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate in RFA
128/2017, 946/2016 and 952/2016.
Mr. Aditya Sharda, Advocate in RFA 51/2017,
60/2017 and 63/2017.
Mr. Vishesh Wadhwa and Ms. Bandana Grover,
Advocates in RFA 54/2017 and 64/2017.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 14.03.2017
1. Appearance is entered by the counsels for the respondents in all the
appeals, who state that they have received a complete set of the paper book.
2. Counsels for the respondents state that they do not have any objection
to the present appeals being disposed of in terms of the same order as was
passed in the other connected appeals filed by the appellants/NrDMC, that
were disposed of by a consent order dated 01.12.2016, passed in RFA
786/2016, being the lead case. They however request that it may be
indicated by the appellants/NrDMC as to what will be the estimated date on
which the amounts payable to the respondents herein would be released in
terms of the compilation prepared and filed in the connected appeals that
have been disposed of.
3. Counsel for the appellants/NrDMC states that though the expected
month and year when the payments will mature in respect of the respondent
in RFA 946/2016 is August/September, 2018, NrDMC has already released
an amount of Rs.16,27,158/- in favour of the said respondent on 31.10.2016.
Similarly, in the case of the respondent in RFA 952/2016, the expected
month and year when the payments will mature is August/October, 2018,
but NrDMC has released a sum of Rs.9,66,687/- in his favour on
31.10.2016. He states that in RFA 64/2017 and 54/2017, the
appellants/NrDMC have released a sum of Rs.4,18,744/- and Rs.2,59,564/-
on 18.03.2016, much prior to the date of passing of the impugned judgment.
4. Counsel for the appellants/NrDMC further states that he has filed an
affidavit in RFA 66/2017 indicating inter alia the amount payable and the
estimated dates of release of payment to the respondents, in terms of the
consent order dated 01.12.2016 passed in the connected appeals, lead matter
being RFA 786/2016. A copy of the said affidavit is handed over to the
counsels for the respondents.
5. Further, counsel for the respondents in RFA 51/2017, 60/2017 and
63/2017 states on instructions from his clients that they are ready and
willing to settle the entire dispute with the appellants/NrDMC by accepting
the timeline for release of payments, including the security amount, which
will result in disposal of the pending suits as well.
6. Mr. Goel, learned counsel for the appellants/NrDMC states that he has
no objection to the aforesaid suggestion and the appellant is ready and
willing to include the security amount in the payments due towards work
orders in RFA 51/2017, 60/2017 and 63/2017, while maintaining the same
tentative dates of payment.
7. Accordingly, the present appeals are disposed of along with the
pending applications in terms of the order dated 01.12.2016 passed in RFA
786/2016, while binding the appellants/NrDMC to the undertakings given
therein.
HIMA KOHLI, J
MARCH 14, 2017
rkb
