Delhi High Court
C J International Hotels Ltd & Anr vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors on 4 December, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 4th December, 2018
+ FAO(OS) 183/2018, CM Nos. 50691-50692/2018
C J INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD & ANR ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. and
Mr. Vivek Tankha, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. H.S. Chandhioke, Mr. Shiv Sapra,
Ms. Neha Mehta, Ms. Pallavi Shali,
Ms. Sweta Kakkad, Ms. Shruti
Sharma, Mr. Harneet and Mr. Prashant
T., Advs.
Versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Yoginder Handoo, Mr. Akshay
Makhija, Ms. Rhea Verma and
Mr. Sneh Suman, Advs. for R1.
Mr. Manjan Mishra, Adv. for R2.
Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC with Mr.
Perala Upendra Sai, Adv. for R3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
CM.No. 50692/2018 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
FAO(OS) 183/2018
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the
order of the learned Single Judge dated 20th November, 2018
whereby the learned Single Judge has passed the following order:
"1. The defendants have filed I.A. 2917/2017 under Order
XXXIX Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure for
modification/clarification of interim order dated 18th May,
2001 to initiate the proceedings against the plaintiff under the
Public Premises Act.
2. The defendants have filed I.A. 8455/2017 under Order
XXXIX Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure for holding the
plaintiff guilty for disobedience and violation of the order
dated 18th May, 2001 and for attaching the property of the
plaintiffs and detaining their Director in civil prison.
3. The pleadings in both the applications are complete and
both the applications are listed for hearing today.
4. Learned counsels for both the parties submit that FAO (OS)
Nos. 262/2017, 324/2017 and 12/2018 against the order of this
Court dismissing the plaintiff's amendment application are
listed before Division Bench today and they mentioned the
matter before the Division Bench and the Division Bench has
requested this Court to adjourn the matter after 04th
December, 2018.
5. List these matters for hearing on 06th December, 2018 at
02:30 PM.
6. This Court has perused the record of this case and this case
appears to be squarely covered by two judgments of this Court
in NDMC v. Prominent Hotel Limited 222 (2015) DLT 706
and Airport Authority of India v. Hotel Leela Ventures 231
(2016) DLT 457. The counsels for the parties shall make
submissions of the applicability of these two judgments on the
next date of hearing.
7. Both the parties are directed to file brief note of submissions
not exceeding three pages along with copies of relevant pages
of relevant documents already on record and judgments on
which they wish to rely, with relevant portion duly highlighted
for the convenience of this Court within ten days.
8. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submits that the
plaintiffs have paid the entire outstanding amount in terms of
the interim orders of this Court which is disputed by counsel
for NDMC.
9. All the Directors of the plaintiff are directed to file an
affidavit to place on record the amounts paid by them till date
within one week. NDMC is also directed to place on record the
amount paid by the plaintiff, the computation of amount
payable by the plaintiff as well as the computation of
outstanding amount within one week.
10. The Investigating Officer of CBI who is investigating the
matter in terms of letter dated 28th August, 2015 of Ministry of
Home Affairs is directed to remain present in Court along with
the status report and the complete relevant record on the next
date of hearing.
11. All the Directors of the plaintiffs' shall remain present in
Court on the next date of hearing.
12. The Director (Estate) of the NDMC shall remain present
in Court on the next date of hearing along with complete
relevant record.
13. Copy of this order be sent to Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned
Standing Counsel for CBI. "
2. It is the submission of Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, learned
Sr. Counsel appearing for the appellant that the Suit in which the
order has been passed was filed in the year 2000 inter alia seeking
Specific Performance and Permanent Injunction against the
respondents. According to him, when this Court is seized of three
appeals being FAO(OS) 262/2017, 324/2017 and 12/2018 wherein
the parties have challenged the orders passed by the learned Single
Judge and when the matter was listed on 20th November, 2018 on a
mentioning before this Court, this Court had requested the learned
Single Judge to adjourn the matter to a date after 4th December,
2018, the learned Single Judge adjourned the matter to 6th
December, 2018 but by giving directions qua personal appearance
of the officers of the appellant as well as respondent no.1. It is his
submission that the learned Single Judge has proceeded with the
said Suit which defeats the very purpose of the directions given by
this court on 20th November, 2018. It is also his submission that the
learned Single Judge in passing the impugned order has also failed
to appreciate that the learned Single Judge is not vested with the
pecuniary jurisdiction to try the said suit to the extent that the
appellants have already challenged the issue before this court in
FAO(OS) 324/2017. In substance, it is his submission that the
learned Single Judge ought not to have proceeded with the said Suit.
3. Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the
respondent no.1 would submit that the order of the learned Single
Judge does not amount to proceeding with the said Suit. According
to him, the learned Single Judge in deference to the order passed by
this Court had adjourned the matter to 6 th December, 2018. Vide
Para 6 of the said order, he has only directed the counsels for the
parties to make their submissions about the applicability of two
judgments on the next date of hearing. Even the direction to file
brief note of submissions is for convenience / and to help the Court
to appreciate the arguments advanced by the parties. Even the
directions in Para 9 onwards is in view of the submission made by
the counsel for the appellant in Para 8, that the appellant has paid
the entire outstanding amount in terms of the interim order passed
by the learned Single Judge.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is an
admitted position that the issues in the appeals are also with regard
to pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge to entertain the
Suit as well as the amendments sought by the appellants, which
surely have a bearing on the suit. So, we are of the view that in the
given circumstance appropriate shall be to stay the proceedings
before the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) 610/2000 till the
decision in FAO(OS) 262/2017, 324/2017 and 12/2018. Ordered
accordingly.
Appeal stands disposed of.
CM. No. 50691/2018 (for stay)
Dismissed as infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
DECEMBER 04, 2018/jg
