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 0, Cited by 1]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Rakesh Kumar Jain vs Dinesh Kumar Gupta & Ors on 8 January, 2019

Author: Rajiv Shakdher

Bench: Rajiv Shakdher

$~17
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 34/2017
       RAKESH KUMAR JAIN                                   ..... Decree Holder
                             Through:   Mr. A.K. Bajpai with Mr. Nitin
                                        Bajpai, Mr. Udit Grover, Mr. Akshay
                                        Gadeok, Mr. Divakar Kumar and Mr.
                                        Rahul Bisht, Advs

                             versus

       DINESH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS             ..... Judgment Debtors
                   Through: Mr. Sunil Chaudhary with Mr.
                             Gaurav Rana, Advs for judgment
                             debtor no. 1, 2 and 5


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
                    ORDER

% 08.01.2019 I.A. Nos. 92/2019 (For direction/clarification) & 98/2019 (For placing on record cheque of Rs. 50 Lacs)

1. These applications according to the counsel for the applicant/judgment debtor no. 1, 2 and 5 bear identical prayers.

2. The first application, i.e. I.A. No. 92/2019, I am told, was filed prior to the winter vacations while the second application was filed thereafter.

3. The sum and substance of these applications is that what was agreed by the applicants/judgment debtor no. 1, 2 and 5 at the hearing held on 17.12.2018 should be varied.

OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 34/2017 page 1 of 2

4. In short, counsel for the applicants/judgment debtor no. 1, 2 and 5 says that the interest should be reduced from 18% as provided in the award/decree to 12% as per the proposal given by the applicant/judgment debtor no. 1,2 and 5.

5. To my mind, these applications cannot be entertained, as what was recorded in order dated 17.12.2018 was recorded in presence of counsel for the parties.

6. The applications are, accordingly, dismissed.




                                             RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
JANUARY 08, 2019
c




OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 34/2017                                    page 2 of 2