$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA 637/2007 UOI & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Rajender Sahu, SPC for UOI with Ms. Hema Sahu, Advocate alongwith AC Raj Kumar, Insp. Sanjay Kumar, SI Manjunath and Ct. Sandeep.

versus SUNIL KUMAR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sahib Gurdeep Singh, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

O R D E R

% 23.01.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CM APPL. 42946/2025 (seeking release of amount deposited vide order dated 22.04.2008) & CM APPL. 46524/2025 (seeking directions)

2. The present application under Section 151 of the CPC filed on behalf of the respondent, seeks the following prayer:

“a. Pass an order directing the Registrar General of this Hon’ble to release the amount deposited vide order dated 22.04.2008.

b. Pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.”

3. Learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.09.2007 allowed the suit for damages filed by the respondent in the following terms: -

“32. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 12% p.a from the date of the legal notice i.e 29-1-05 against all defendants who are jointly and severally liable to pay the decretal amount and in case payment is not made of the decretal amount within a period of two months, the plaintiff shall be entitled to future interest @ 12% p.a. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.”

4. Vide order dated 22.04.2008, while admitting the captioned appeal, learned Division Bench of this Court passed the following directions: -

“ ADMIT.

Respondent has put in appearance. Lower Court Records shall be called for. The appeal shall be listed for hearing in due course.

The appellant has already deposited the decretal amount of Rs.66,000/- in this court. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent, who appears in person, we direct release of 50% of the said amount in favour of the respondent, subject to the condition that in case the appellant succeeds in this appeal and the respondent is held to be not entitled to the amount, he shall refund the amount released to him within such time as may be fixed by this Court. Remainder of the amount shall remain invested in a term deposit initially for a period of three years.”

5. Learned Predecessor Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.10.2024, while upholding the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.09.2007 passed by learned Trial Court in favour of the respondent and dismissing the captioned appeal, had observed as under: -

“13. The learned Trial Court has rightly placed reliance on the decision in the case of W.B. SEB v. Dilip Kumar Roy¹, which has observed that the initiation of unfounded and malicious proceedings before any administrative or domestic tribunal, in the absence of foundational facts or material, is likely to cause significant mental anguish to the delinquent employee. Although the respondent-

(2004) 5 SLR 723 (Cal) (DB)

plaintiff sought compensation for damages in the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-, the Court awarded Rs. 50,000, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, calculated from the date of issuance of the legal notice, i.e., 29.01.2015.

14. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds no justification to interfere into the aforesaid findings. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed.”

6. A SLP Civil Diary No.33247/2025 against the aforesaid order dated 28.10.2024 passed in the present appeal was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 25.07.2025 by observing as under: -

“1. Delay condoned.

2. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court; hence, the special leave petition is dismissed.

3. However, we approve paragraph 33 of the judgment and order dated 04th February, 2004, passed by the High Court of Calcutta reported in 2006(3) Calcutta High Court Notes 309, relied on by the trial Court and the High Court of Delhi in the impugned judgments.

4