Settlement agreements create binding obligations enforceable through consent decrees, with clear timelines for compliance being essential to uphold the agreement.

JUDGMENT

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

Rajiv Shakdher, J.: (ORAL)

CM No.21296/2021

1. The prayer made in the captioned application is to grant exemption from filing notarised/attested affidavits.

2. The captioned application is disposed of with a direction to the applicants/appellants to place on record the duly notarised/attested affidavits, within two weeks from today, notwithstanding the order passed hereinbelow.

CM Nos.3033-34/2021 & 21295/2021

3. These applications have been filed on behalf of the appellants seeking condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeal as also in filing the written submissions and convenience compilation, as directed by this Court.

3.1. Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent, says that, he has no objection, if the prayers made in the captioned applications, are allowed.

4. Accordingly, the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal, as also in filing the written submissions and convenience compilation, is condoned.

5. The captioned applications are, accordingly, disposed of.

EFA(OS) 2/2021 & CM No.3031/2021 [Application filed on behalf of the appellants seeking stay on the operation of the impugned order dated 23.09.2020]

CM No.8432/2021 [Application filed on behalf of the appellants seeking leave to amend the memo of appeal]

CM No.11825/2021 [Application filed on behalf of the appellants to place on record subsequent developments]

CM No.11826/2021 [Application filed on behalf of the appellants seeking leave to seek consequential relief, if any, at a later stage, in view of the subsequent developments that come into the knowledge of the appellants]

CM No.11883/2021 [Application filed on behalf of the appellants seeking production of documents in the possession, power and knowledge of the respondent pertaining to the subsequent transfer of the suit premises by the respondent to third parties during the pendency of the appeal]

6. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the learned Single judge, dated 23.09.2020.

6.1. The appellants before us are the judgment debtors while the respondent is the decree holder.

Background facts: -

7. For the purposes of adjudication of the appeal, the following facts, qua which, largely, there is no dispute, are required to be noticed.

7.1. The respondent/decree holder, i.e., the original plaintiff had filed two suits before this court, i.e., CS(OS) Nos. 674/2017 and 675/2017. These two suits concerned agreements to sell, dated 11.05.2017 and 29.06.2017.

7.2. The suit properties, which were involved in the aforementioned suits, were: the basement, ground floor and third floor, along with terrace, situate at D-6/32, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.

7.3. While the aforementioned suits, were pending, the parties arrived at a settlement amongst themselves, which resulted in a Settlement Agreement dated 22.04.2019 [hereafter referred to as `SA'] being drawn-up. The SA morphed into a consent decree, dated 01.05.2019. The broad terms of settlement, as arrived at between the parties, as incorporated in the SA, were as follows:

(i) The respondent/decree holder was required to pay Rs. 10.50 crores to an entity going by the name of IDFC First Ltd. [hereafter referred to as "IDFC"].

(ii) The appellants/judgment debtors were required to execute, within three days of the payment of the aforesaid sum [i.e., Rs. 10.50 crores] to IDFC, three separate irrevocable general power of attorney(s) (in short "PoAs") in favour of the respondent/decree holder, in respect of the aforementioned suit properties.

(iii) The appellants/judgement debtors were required to pay Rs. 13.39 crores to the respondent/decree holder, within 10