Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Institute Of Marketing And Management vs The Indian Institute Of Planning And ... on 11 September, 2020

Author: Rajiv Shakdher

Bench: Rajiv Shakdher

                          $~13
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                          +      CS(COMM) 326/2020 & I.A. 6981/2020

                                 INSTITUTE OF MARKETING AND MANAGEMENT
                                                                                           .....Plaintiff
                                                     Through :     Mr. J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
                                                                   Arjun Mahajan, Mr. Davesh Bhatia
                                                                   and Ms. Eesha Bakshi, Advs.
                                                     versus

                                 THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
                                                                        .....Defendant
                                                Through : None.
                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
                                          ORDER

% 11.09.2020 [Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]

1. Via order dated 18.08.2020, a Court Commissioner was appointed in the matter.

1.1 The Court Commissioner has submitted her report dated 04.09.2020. The findings of the Court Commissioner are, in essence, summarized in paragraphs 18 and 19 of her report. For the sake of convenience, the same are extracted hereafter:

"18. The suit property is located at the fifth (5 th) floor of IMM premises. The access to the suit property was restricted by both, elevator as well as the staircase inside the building. One elevator i.e. the main elevator, was not working due to being stuck in the shaft much above the fourth (4th) level. The other elevator i.e. the small elevator is not functional beyond the fourth (4th) floor. As far as the stairway is concerned, the main CS(COMM) 326/2020 1/3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:12.09.2020 12:15:19 staircase was restricted at a point after a few flights of steps i.e. midway, from the fourth (4th) floor, by a chained and locked grill gate, blocking access to the suit property. The backside staircase connects every floor including the terrace where the door to the fifth (5th) floor i.e. suit property was found to be bolted/locked from inside and the entry to the terrace was blocked by a fixed wooden ply.

19. That this Hon'ble Court wanted the Court Commissioner to ascertain as to whether the common areas and passage to the terrace has been blocked qua the suit property located at Fifth Floor, Marketing Tower, B-11, Tara Crescent, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi -110016. It is accordingly answered in affirmative. In terms of the report, as long as the main staircase is concerned, the common area i.e. the landing (midway point) of the main staircase above the fourth (4th) floor and the passage to the terrace above the suit property, was blocked/restricted. As long as the backside staircase is concerned, there is no restriction on common area i.e. stairs leading to the entrance to the terrace but the entrance to the terrace above the suit property is blocked/restricted by wooden ply."

1.2 To be noted, the report is also accompanied by some photographs and a pen drive. A hard copy of the report has been placed before me. 1.3 The Registry will keep, in safe custody, the hard copy of the report and also preserve the pen drive. The pen drive contains electronic evidence and, therefore, the Registry will ensure that necessary steps are taken, in that behalf, including according a hash (#) value to the evidence presented so that the same is not tampered with.

2. The defendant, however, for some strange reason, is not represented today.

3. Mr. J.P. Sengh, learned senior counsel, who appears for the plaintiff, says that a perusal of the report of the Court Commissioner would demonstrate that the defendant has quite clearly blocked access to the suit premises.

3.1 Mr. Sengh goes on to say that the said report also demonstrates that the elevators are not functioning and, therefore, the plaintiff should be permitted to carry out necessary repairs to the elevators i.e. the main and the smaller elevator.

3.2 Permission, in that behalf, is granted.

4. The defendant will not impede the repairs of the elevators. The plaintiff will be at liberty to employ persons/agency having the requisite wherewithal to repair the elevators.

4.1 Furthermore, the defendant is restrained from creating any third-party rights in the suit property till further orders of the Court. 4.2 Besides this, the defendant will not hinder the access of the authorized representative of the plaintiff to the terrace over the 5th floor of the suit property.

4.3 The defendant will also permit the plaintiff to place fire-fighting equipment(s) on the terrace.

5. List the matter on 17.11.2020.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J SEPTEMBER 11, 2020 pmc/KK Click here to check corrigendum, if any CS(COMM) 326/2020 3/3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:12.09.2020 12:15:19