Delhi High Court - Orders
Shalini Arora vs Surjit Singh & Ors on 6 November, 2024
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~45
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 931/2017 (Disposed off case)
SHALINI ARORA .....Appellant
Through: None.
versus
SURJIT SINGH & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Raman Kapur, Senior
Advocate with Dr. Hemant Gupta
and Mr. Dhiraj Sachdeva,
Advocates R-1 to 6
Dr. Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva,
Mr. Rohit Lochav, Mr. Waseem
Ahmad, Advocates with Mr.
Asheesh Saran Khanna, Manager
(DSIIDC) for Applicant in CM
APPL. 64916/2024
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 06.11.2024 CM APPL. 64916/2024
1. The Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. ["DSIIDC"], which was arrayed as respondent No. 7 in the captioned appeal, has filed this application, for direction upon respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in the appeal to deposit an amount of ₹ 1,70,57,752/- with the respondent No. 7.
2. The appeal was disposed of by a judgment of this Court dated 08.12.2017. By the said judgment, this Court upheld a decree passed by the learned District Court on 13.01.2017 in a suit filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein [hereinafter, "the plaintiffs"]. The learned District Court came to the conclusion that a bid submitted by the appellant herein RFA 931/2017 Page 1 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/11/2024 at 18:45:18 to DSIIDC for allotment of a shed, was liable to be cancelled, as it was manipulated/ altered after submission. The learned District Court, therefore, granted a mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiffs herein with regard to the allotment of the shed in their names.
3. While upholding the decree passed by the Trial Court, this Court came to the conclusion that there was clear manipulation in the bid submitted by the appellant herein and gave the following directions:
"11. Learned counsels for the appellant and respondent no.8/defendant nos. 2 and 3 argued before this Court that now a conveyance deed has been executed in favour of the appellant/defendant no.2 since the appellant/defendant no.2 was successful in establishing her case in the writ petition and therefore the present suit would not lie as the conveyance deed in favour of the appellant/defendant no.2 has to be first cancelled, however this argument is misconceived because once the present suit is successful and it is directed that the bid given by the appellant and respondent no.8/defendant nos.2 and 3 has to be cancelled then obviously and consequently the conveyance deed executed in favour of the appellant and/or respondent no.8, either individually or even if exists jointly if it had been so executed, has to be cancelled. This is all the more so because the judgment in the writ petition would not operate as res judicata against the respondent nos. 1 to 6/plaintiffs because they were not parties to the writ petition where only inter se disputes between the appellant and respondent no.8/defendant nos.2 and 3 were decided. Therefore, now DSIDC will have to cancel the conveyance deed executed in favour of the appellant/defendant no.2 and the concerned Sub-Registrar is directed to register this cancellation deed with the fact that DSIDC should now execute the conveyance deed of the subject property in favour of the respondent nos. 1 to 6/plaintiffs and thereafter register the same with the concerned Sub-Registrar. Respondent nos. 1 to 6/plaintiffs will be liable to pay for all the necessary charges which are payable for the stamp duty etc towards execution and also for charges of the registration of the conveyance deed which will be executed by DSIDC in favour of the respondent nos. 1 to 6/plaintiffs."
[Emphasis Supplied]
4. This judgment was carried to the Supreme Court, not just by the RFA 931/2017 Page 2 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/11/2024 at 18:45:18 appellant, but also by DSIIDC. It may be noticed that the factum of DSIIDC having approached the Supreme Court against the judgment dated 08.12.2017, does not find mention in the captioned application. A copy of an order dated 20.09.2018 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) Diary No. 32455/2018 has been produced by Mr. Raman Kapur, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs. It clearly shows that the petition was filed by DSIIDC and was directed against the said judgment dated 08.12.2017. The appellant had also separately challenged the same judgment in SLP(C) 13632-13633/2018. Both special leave petitions came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court, by an order dated 10.10.2023. The appellant was given liberty to file an appropriate representation with DSIIDC with regard to compensation for the construction made on the property, but that is not the subject matter of the present application.
5. The decree, upheld by this Court, has also been put in execution by the plaintiffs. The applicant-DSIIDC is participating in the execution proceedings and has, in fact, executed a conveyance deed in favour of the plaintiffs, upon them making payment of the bid amount of ₹55,00,000/-, as initially submitted by them to DSIIDC. It is undisputed that the necessary charges payable for stamp duty, etc. have been paid by the plaintiffs, who have also been put in possession of the property.
6. By way of this application, DSIIDC seeks a direction upon the plaintiffs to pay interest upon the aforesaid amount of Rs.55 lakhs. No such direction appears in the judgment dated 08.12.20217. Even if there is any merit in the DSIIDC's claim for interest, such relief cannot be granted in this application, which is highly misconceived. No such RFA 931/2017 Page 3 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/11/2024 at 18:45:19 direction can be sought in a disposed of appeal, where the judgment of this Court has also been taken to the Supreme Court unsuccessfully by DSIIDC itself.
7. The applicant-DSIIDC was also duty bound to disclose to this Court that it had challenged the judgment dated 20.08.2017 before the Supreme Court unsuccessfully. Its failure to do so amounts to suppression of material facts.
8. The application is dismissed, with costs of ₹25,000/- payable by DSIDC to the plaintiffs.
PRATEEK JALAN, J NOVEMBER 6, 2024 "SV"/ RFA 931/2017 Page 4 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/11/2024 at 18:45:19