Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Dhammanagi And Sanu Developers Pvt. Ltd vs Executive Board Of Methodist Church In ... on 30 September, 2024
Author: B.R. Gavai
Bench: B.R. Gavai
ITEM NO.61 COURT NO.3 SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) …
@ DIARY NO(S). 11984/2024 IN SLP(C) NO. 14228/2017, 14229/2017,
14230/2017 & 29440/2017
DHAMMANAGI AND SANU DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ANR. PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
EXECUTIVE BOARD OF METHODIST CHURCH IN INDIA & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
(IA No. 222580/2024 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 198925/2024 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 94246/2024 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
IA No. 200016/2024 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 190661/2024 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT)
Date : 30-09-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Adv.
Mr. P.b. Suresh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. D.s. Naidu, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mayank Jain, Adv.
Mr. Parmatma Singh, AOR
Mr. Madhur Jain, Adv.
Mr. Arpit Goel, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. C.A. Sundaram,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Aditya Sidhra,Adv.
Mr. Nadeem Afroz,Adv.
Ms. Rohini Musa, AOR
Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, AOR
Mr. Vaibhav Sabharwal, Adv.
Ms. Anisha Agarwal, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Ms. Anjali Agarwal, Adv.
Digitally signed by
Narendra Prasad
Date: 2024.10.01
17:34:26 IST
Reason: Ms. Malvika Trivedi,Sr.Adv.
Ms. Shilpa Singh,Adv.
Mr. Dhananjay Kumar,Adv.
1
Mr. Vanshaj Tyagi,Adv.
Ms. Sujal Gupta,Adv.
Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Shivansh B. Pandya,Adv.
Mr. Anshuman Animesh,Adv.
Mr. Sankalp Kumar,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
IA No. 198925/2024
1. This application has been filed by the original defendant No.1 in the suit seeking impleadment of the applicant and also direction to include the applicant as a party in the mediation process, ordered by this Court vide order dated 10.05.2024.
2. We have heard Shri C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant. He submits that the original plaintiff and the original defendant No.3 are collusively settling the matter before the learned Mediator. It is submitted that though the present applicant was original defendant No.1, he has been surreptitiously deleted at the request of the plaintiff. He further submits that the said order is under challenge by way of an appeal. He also submits that any outcome of the mediation proceedings, without the presence of the present applicant before the learned Mediator, would seriously prejudice the rights of the applicant.
3. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the contempt petitioner(s) submits that the matter between the original plaintiff and the defendant no.3 is almost at the fag end of mediation process. He further submits that the present applicant also stands deleted from the array of parties as defendant in the suit. He also submits that the present applicant is not the original defendant No.1 but an imposter claiming to be defandant No.1.
4. The very concept of the mediation has as its basis the consent of the parties. If two contesting parties in a proceeding are willing to settle their dispute amongst themselves, this Court cannot compel any other party to join in the mediation process.
25. In any case the settlement, if any arrived at between some of the parties would only bind the said parties and not the other parties who are not party to the mediation proceedings. As such, we are not inclined to entertain the present application. The application is disposed of with the above observations.
I.A. Nos.190661 & 222580 of 2024
1. The present applications have been filed by M/s. Rajshri Packagers (Unit-IV) Ltd. The applicant in these applications is neither a party to the original proceedings in the suit nor a party in the said proceedings.
2. We are therefore not inclined to entertain the present applications. The applications are disposed of reserving the right of the applicant to pursue its remedy before an appropriate forum.
I.A. NO.200016/2024.
1. This is an application for impleadment of Mr. Abhijeet Sharad Kulkarni as respondent No.3 in the petition and also seeking some directions.
2. The present proceedings are contempt proceedings and it is for the petitioner to decide as to who should be the parties to the petition.
3. Since the application is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the contempt petitioner(s), we are not inclined to entertain the present application.
4. Reserving the right of the present applicant to pursue his remedy before an appropriate forum, the application is disposed of.
(NARENDRA PRASAD) (ANJU KAPOOR)
DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER
3