CCP No.132/2008

Page 1 of 7

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CCP No.132/2008 in CS(OS) No.214/2002

%

Date of Decision: 06.04.2009

Sh.Vijay Pandit

…. Petitioners

Through Mr.Vikas Sharma, Advocate

Versus

M/s.GR Investments India Pvt Ltd & Anr

…. Respondents

Through Nemo.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

1.

Whether reporters of Local papers may be

allowed to see the judgment?

YES

2.

To be referred to the reporter or not?

NO

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in

the Digest?

NO

ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

1. This is a petition under Sections 11 & 12 of the Contempt of

Courts Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for

initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent for disobeying

and disregarding the order dated 8^th August, 2005 and for violating the

alleged undertaking given to the Court and for violating the terms of the

family settlement dated 16^th July, 2005.

2. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking

restraint against the defendant company from evicting the plaintiffs

from second floor of the property bearing No.D-178, Defence Colony,

New Delhi and from obstructing their ingress and egress to the said

2009:DHC:1177

CCP No.132/2008

Page 2 of 7

property. Smt. Nutan Pandit, alleged contemnor, is stated to be Director

of the defendant company and is also the wife of plaintiff No.1.

3. The disputes regarding the divorce and other proceedings were

also pending between Smt.Nutan Pandit, Director of defendant company

and the plaintiff. A settlement was arrived at between the plaintiff and

the defendants pursuant to which a joint application dated 5^th July,

2005 supported by the affidavits of Sh.Vijay Pandit, plaintiff and

Smt.Nutan Pandit, Director of the defendant company was filed.

4. On the application of the parties, the statement of Sh.Vijay Pandit

and Smt.Nutan Pandit were recorded who had stated that they have

signed the settlement after reading and understanding the same and

the joint application incorporating the terms of settlement is signed by

them. No undertaking was given by them to the Court nor any

undertaking was accepted by the Court.

5. On the basis of their joint application the Court had passed the

following order:-

“ The parties have filed his application contending that they

have settled the suit in terms of settlement arrived at

between them and the plaintiff prays for withdrawal of the

suit in terms of the settlement arrived at. The settlement is

incorporated in Annexure `A’ annexed with the application.

The Counsel for the parties stated that the settlement

is signed by the parties. The application for compromise

also includes the terms of settlement. Application is signed

2009:DHC:1177

CCP No.132/2008

Page 3 of 7

by the parties and is also supported by the affidavit of the

plaintiff and the affidavit of the director of the defendant,

Mrs. Nutan Pandit. The application is marked as `Exhibit P-

1’.

The counsel states that the party shall be bound by

the terms and settlement as incorporated in application

which is exhibited `P-1’.

In view of the settlement arrived at between the

parties, the plaintiff is allowed to withdraw the suit in terms

of settlement set out in the application leaving the parties

to bear their own costs.

The suit is disposed of.”

6.

Therefore, pursuant to the settlement between the parties the

plaintiff was permitted to withdraw the suit in terms of the settlement

leaving the parties to bear their own cost and no decree was passed as

it was not prayed by the plaintiff and defendant that a decree in terms

of the settlement be passed.

7. The petitioner is now aggrieved by a suit for declaration filed by

Smt.Nutan Pandit to the effect that the settlement dated 16^th July, 2005

entered between the parties be declared null and void because her

consent was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. Accordin