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) 1021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Najmi Waziri, Sudhir Kumar Jain, JJ.
Cinema Ventures Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
M/s Isherdas Sahni And Bros. – Respondent
EFA(OS) 1 of 2023 & CM APPL. 5973 of 2023 (stay)
Decided On : 01-03-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohit Paul, Ms. Rangoli Seth, Mr. Irfan Hasieb, Mr. Krishnajyoti Deka and Mr. Rishabh Munjal, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Mr. Viraj R. Datar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jeevesh Nagrath and Mr. Arjun Gaur, Advocates, for the Respondent.

Enforcement of consent decree and release of specified amount despite disputes over operationalization of cinema hall and alleged misuse of assets.

Headnote:

Consent Decree - Execution Petition - The court directed the release of a specific amount to the respondent in terms of a consent decree, despite the appellant's argument that the cinema hall, which was the basis of the settlement, was not operationalized to generate revenue for satisfying the agreed liability.

Fact of the Case:

The appeal challenged the order directing the release of a specific amount to the respondent in execution of a consent decree related to a cinema hall.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed the release of the specified amount to the respondent, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.

Issues: Dispute over the release of a specific amount in execution of a consent decree and the alleged misuse of assets related to the cinema hall.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the specific amount should be released to the respondent as directed in the consent decree, despite the appellant's argument regarding the operationalization of the cinema hall and alleged misuse of assets.

Final Decision: The appeal, along with pending applications, was disposed of with the direction to release the specified amount to the respondent.

JUDGMENT

Najmi Waziri, J. (Oral)

The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).

1. This appeal impugns the order dated 31.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Execution Petition bearing no. 13/2022 which has directed to release of amount of Rs.1,91,82,740/- to the respondent in terms of the consent decree whereunder the respondent is to be paid a minimum amount of Rs.3,23,18,735/- and the maximum amount of Rs.6,46,37,470/-.

2. Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submits that the settlement formed the basis of the consent decree and was a contingent settlement i.e. the cinema hall was to have been operationalised in terms of the settlement/consent decree, which, in turn would have fetch revenue to the appellant so as to satisfy the agreed liability. It is not in dispute that the decree itself has not been impugned.

3. Be that as it may, the minimum amount agreed to be paid is Rs.3,23,18,735/-. The impugned order has directed release of Rs.1,91,82,740/-. Let this amount be released. It will obviously be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.

4. The learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submits that the entire movie hall is having his assets, therefore, his interest in the said cinema hall, which presently is being run by other party are being misused or otherwise used without authority. This contention is refuted by the respondent.

5. The appeal, along with pending applications, if any, is disposed-off in the above terms.

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