Sanjeev Kumar v. Rajeev Kumar & ANR

$~2 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ SANJEEV KUMAR ..... Appellant Through:

Mr.

Deepak Dhingra and Ms.

Shivangi Singh, Advocates.

versus RAJEEV KUMAR & ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Kabir Dixit and Mr. Waheb Hussain, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

O R D E R

% 18.10.2016 CM No. 19594/2016 (for modification of order dated 17.9.2015) 1.

By this application the appellant/applicant seeks modification of the order dated 17.9.2015. The main RSA was disposed of by the order dated 13.2.2014 dismissing the CM No.1773/2013 filed by the respondents and in which order dated 13.2.2014 it was noted that the consent order passed on 19.12.2012 would be taken as a final settlement between the parties. Counsel for the respondents confirms that the order disposing of the RSA on 13.2.2014 by dismissing the CM No. 1773/2013 was taken in challenge to

the Supreme Court by the respondents but that challenge failed. 2.

Appellant had thereafter moved an application being CM No. 9888/2015 seeking payment of interest on delayed amount of Rs.55 lacs which was to be payable by the respondents to the appellant under the settlement as recorded in the order dated 19.12.2012 read with the order dated 13.2.2014, and this application was allowed by learned Single Judge of this Court on 17.9.2015 directing payment of interest at 6% per annum simple on the amount of Rs.55 lacs from 1.3.2013, subject of course to adjustment of amounts which were already paid by the respondents i.e interest was to be on reducing balance.

This order dated 17.9.2015 was challenged by the respondents in a review petition but that review petition no. 614/2015 was dismissed by the order dated 21.12.2015 of a learned Single Judge of this Court.

3.

Therefore it emerges that this RSA stands disposed of as compromised as per the orders dated 19.12.2012 and 13.2.2014 as modified by the order dated 17.9.2015 which gave interest at 6% per annum to the appellant. Obviously, it is only after the complete amount is paid as per the consent order dated 19.12.2012, alongwith the interest granted by the order

dated 17.9.2015, that thereafter the appellant will have to execute the release deed as per the settlement terms recorded in the order dated 19.12.2012. 4.

Counsel for the respondents states that the cheques for the entire due amount plus interest payable have been deposited in the executing court in March 2016, and if that be so, the interest will stop running from the date of deposit of cheques in Court subject to the appellant having been put to notice of the deposit of the cheques in Court, and which is the mandate of Order 21 Rule 1 CPC which provides that interest on amount payable would stop running once the amount is deposited in Court after notice to the other side.

5.

Counsel for the appellant states that cheques in question would now have expired and therefore the cheques need to be replaced, and accordingly now the respondents will make pay orders with respect to the amounts due as on the date of deposit of the cheques in the executing court below and such pay orders will be handed over directly to the appellant in the executing court towards settlement as recorded in the order dated 19.12.2012 read with order dated 17.9.2015. Once the aforesaid pay orders are handed over to the appellant, then the appellant will simultaneously execute the necessary

release deed in favour of the respondents in terms of the settlement. The executing court will ensure compliance of the present order. 6.

No further orders are required with respect to the appellant being allowed to visit the suit property inasmuch as it is noted that once the appellant would have deposited the keys in the court, obviously, he would have removed all his material therefrom.

7.

This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J OCTOBER 18, 2016 ib