SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 1913

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ.
G. K. Dairy And Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Gurdip Singh – Respondent
RFA(COMM) 9 of 2022 and CM Appls. 46244-45 of 2022
Decided On : 12-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
Brijesh K. Tamber with Vinay Bist and Yashi Rustagi, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Raghvendra M. Bajaj, Advocate with respondent in-person, for the Respondent.

Facilitation of settlement based on the ex facie penal nature of a clause in the lease agreement.

Headnote:

Settlement - Lease Agreement - The court facilitated a settlement between the parties based on a penal clause in the lease agreement, leading to the appellant offering a settlement amount to the respondent, which was accepted, resulting in the disposal of the appeal.

Fact of the Case:

The appeal was related to the relief granted in the impugned judgment by the learned District Judge, which was based on a penal clause in the lease deed dated 08.04.2013.

Finding of the Court:

The court facilitated a settlement between the parties, with the appellant offering a settlement amount to the respondent, which was accepted, leading to the disposal of the appeal.

Issues: The main issue was the relief granted in the impugned judgment based on the penal clause in the lease agreement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court focused on facilitating a settlement between the parties based on the ex facie penal nature of the clause in the lease agreement, leading to the disposal of the appeal.

Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of based on the agreed settlement between the parties, with the matter listed for compliance on a future date.

JUDGMENT

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

Rajiv Shakdher, J.: (Oral)

1. We had commenced hearing arguments in the appeal.

2. During the course of hearing, it was suggested to Mr Brijesh K. Tamber, who appears on behalf of the appellant, as to whether the appellant is still willing to make an offer for settlement, given the age of the respondent.

2.1. The respondent, who appears in-person, has also expressed his desire to close the matter.

3. As noticed in the very first order passed in the appeal on 21.02.2022, the appeal was confined to the relief which has been granted in the impugned judgment by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-02, as reflected in paragraph 52(B) of the said judgment.

3.1. The learned District Judge has awarded Rs.22,80,000/- towards damages at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per day for the period spanning between 01.02.2018 and 02.05.2019, albeit, after adjustment of rent which has been paid by the appellant at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month till the date the subject premises were vacated and handed over to the respondent.

4. This relief was pivoted on Clause III (2) of the lease deed dated 08.04.2013 which had been executed between the parties. The said clause read as follows:

    "III. IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

    1..........

    2. If the lessee do not vacate the premises on the final date of lease i.e. by 31-01-2018 unless its further renewal by the Lessor. Than [sic - then] the lessee will by [sic - pay] a penalty Rs.5000/- per day till the lessee finally vacate the premises...."

5. Given the fact, that the clause was ex facie penal in nature, both parties have agreed to settle the dispute, instead of prolonging the litigation any further.

6. Mr Tamber says that has sought instructions from Mr Gopal Dixit, the Managing Director of the appellant.

6.1. Mr Tamber says, that Rs.3,00,000/- towards full and final settlement in satisfaction of the relief granted under paragraph 52(B) of the impugned judgment will be paid to respondent, within four (4) weeks commencing from today.

6.2. This offer has been accepted by the respondent, who is, as indicated above, present in-person.

7. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, as agreed by the parties.

8. List the matter for compliance on 15.02.2023.

9. Before we conclude, we must record our appreciation for the assistance rendered in the matter by Mr Raghvendra M. Bajaj, Advocate on behalf of the respondent. We had to requisition the services of Mr Bajaj, as the respondent is nearly ninety years old.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top