Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

This Order Of Mine Will Dispose Of ... vs Uoi 1 Of 3 on 5 November, 2016

                 In the Court of Virender  Kumar Goyal,
                   Additional District Judge­01 (East),
                        Karkardooma Court, Delhi
Ex: 312/16
In the matter of :­
Kishan  and ors                             .....  DHs
                                          Versus
UOI                                            ..... JD
                                       O R D E R

    1.

This order of mine will dispose of   application filed U/s 151 CPC by the  UOI/JD, seeking directions to the petitioner/DH for depositing the  amount or providing  security for refund of excess money paid to the petitioner/DH.  

2. It is stated in the application that  UOI/JD has filed objection and the same are pending disposal and the petitioner/DH has not filed reply  to the same.  It is stated  that UOI/JD has a very good case and petitioner/DH has not filed the reply and it would take time in disposal of the objections. It is further stated that petitioner/DH has already received huge amount and  there  are  possibilities    that  even   after  disposal  of   the objections   in   favour   of   UOI/JD,   the   petitioner/DH   may dispose off the money and recovery of the amount may be impossible   and   prayed   for   directing   the   petitioner/DH   to deposit     the   amount   received   or   to   provide   security     for recovery of the amount.

3. Reply   to   application     not   filed   on   behalf   of     the petitioner/DH.

Ex: 312/2016 Kishan and ors vs UOI 1 Of 3

4. I have heard the ld. counsels for the parties and perused the record. 

5. One execution was pending before the court since 2011 and was   under     the   proceeding   for   payment   of   the   decreetal amount   to   the   DH.   However,   during     the   proceedings, objections   were   filed   on     a   legal   issue,   to   the   extent   that compensation   was   payable   on   a   lesser   rate   of   amount, instead of claim of the DH. But, meanwhile, the DH filed an application   directly   before   the   LAC,     for   release   of   the compensation  at the rate, which was objected by UOI.  

6. The documents   have been placed on record. According to the photocopy  of the documents, application  had been given on 17.12.2014 to the LAC for the release of compensation, on the ground that DH was suffering from diabetes and is a heart patient. He is having 4 daughters of marriageable age, so, he is in need  of money for marriage of his daughters. In the said application  it was not disclosed  that Execution was already   pending     before   the   court.     Compensation   was released at a higher rate, which has   been   objected, to the DH, on furnishing  bonds. Payment was released by way of cheques dated 29.12.2014.

7. On 16.1.2015 and  on 10.03.2015, none appeared on behalf of the DH. So, Court Notice was issued to the DH. However, on   18.3.2015,     the   Lrs   of   the   DH     with   counsel   Shri Ghanshyam Mishra  appeared  before the court and disclosed that  they have received   the compensation  out of the court from the office of LAC(East). So, in this manner neither the Ex: 312/2016 Kishan and ors vs UOI 2 Of 3 LAC   informed     the   court   about     the     release   of   the compensation, nor the Lrs  of the DH, so,   court notice  was issued   and   in   furtherance   to   the   same,   it   came   in   the knowledge   of   the   court   that   the   Lrs   of   the   DH   directly approached the LAC, without disclosing  about the pendency of the case and by concealing the fact   of pendency of the Execution petition. Thereafter,  the LRs of  the DH stopped appearing before the court and again started appearing,when the present application  has been filed. 

8. In view of above facts and circumstances,   the LRs of the DH are guilty   of concealing   the facts from the   court and obtained     the   compensation   from   the   LAC,   without disclosing   the   pendency   of   the   execution   petition   and according   to   the   objections   filed,   they   got   released   the compensation   in   excess,   which   was   not  permissible   under law, in view of the objections.  

9. Accordingly, the LRs of the DH, whosoever have received the compensation in excess from the LAC are directed to furnish   Bank   Guarantee   for   a   period   of   3   years   for     the excess amount already received by each of the LRs.  

10.In the above said terms, the application filed u/s 151 of CPC filed by the  applicants stands disposed of.       Announced in the open Court on: 05.11.2016.                                                                 

                                                                ( Virender Kumar Goyal )
                                                          Additional District Judge­01
                                                         (East)/KKD/Delhi  




Ex: 312/2016                    Kishan and ors vs UOI                 3 Of 3
 s




Ex: 312/2016   Kishan and ors vs UOI   4 Of 3