Phoenix Arc Private Limited ... vs Pawan Tanwar & Ors
2018 Latest Caselaw 5728 Del

#62

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                               Judgment delivered on: 20.09.2018


CONT.CAS.(C) 485/2016

PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED ACTING IN ITS
CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF PHOENIX TRUST
FY- 16-15                               ..... Petitioner


                              versus


PAWAN TANWAR & ORS                                                 ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : None
For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Singla, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sheetesh Khanna, Advocate for
                      R-1
                      Mr. R.M. Sinha and Mr. P.M. Sinha, Advocates for R-2

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

                                  JUDGMENT

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)

1. The present contempt petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been instituted on behalf of the

petitioner, predicated on an assertion that, respondent No.1 has willfully

violated an undertaking given to this Court to hand over vacant physical

possession of the entire ground floor of property No.E-52, Block-E, New

Multan Nagar, Delhi, as recorded in the order of this Court dated

13.01.2016 in W.P.(C) 9287/2015, titled as 'Pawan Tanwar vs. Karnataka

Bank'.

2. Mr. A.K. Singla, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No.1, who had furnished the aforesaid undertaking to this Court

states that, pursuant to the directions of this Court dated the 09.09.2016,

issued in the present contempt proceedings, the keys of the subject property

have been deposited in the Court. Mr. Singla, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, on instructions states that, the keys

may be released to the petitioners, in terms of his undertaking, and the

contempt notice to show cause issued to him be discharged. Mr. Singla,

learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 lastly states

that, an unconditional apology on behalf of respondent No.1 may be

accepted to put a quietus to the matter.

3. Insofar as respondent No.2 is concerned, it would be relevant to

observe that, during the pendency of the present contempt petition, the

petitioners, as well as, respondent No.2 are stated to have entered into a

settlement, pursuant to which a sum of Rs.53,00,000/- is stated to have been

paid to the petitioner by respondent No.2.

4. In this view of the matter, Mr. R.V. Sinha, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of respondent No.2 states that, they are not guilty of violating the

directions issued by this Court vide order dated 13.01.2016 and are entitled

to recover the aforesaid sum or enforce the terms of the settlement.

5. In view of the foregoing, in terms of the observations made by this

Court, as contained in the order dated 15.09.2016, the respondent No.2 is

granted liberty to initiate proceedings seeking recovery of

money/enforcement of settlement before a Court of competent jurisdiction,

in accordance with law.

6. The present contempt petition is disposed of with the following

directions:-

a) The keys of the subject property be handed over to the petitioner

forthwith;

b) The notice to show cause issued to the respondents are hereby

discharged; and

c) The unconditional apology tendered on behalf of respondent No.1

is hereby accepted.

7. Needless to state that the above directions are issued without prejudice

to the rights and contentions of respondent No.2. The pending applications

also stand disposed of.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL (JUDGE)

SEPTEMBER 20, 2018 dn