Orient Carpet Gallery Pvt Ltd v. Suresh Jain

1. The appellant is aggrieved by a decree being passed on admission allowing IA 2094/2008 filed by the respondent. It is apparent that Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure was brought into aid.

2. Suit filed by the respondent sought specific performance of an agreement dated December 09, 2005. Permanent injunction to restrain the appellant from alienating, transferring or encumbering suit property in favour of third party was also prayed for. In the alternative damages were prayed for.

3. The decree passed is directing specific performance of the agreement dated December 09, 2005. The permanent injunction sought for has also been granted. The respondent has been held entitled to costs. 'U" 4. The defence of the appellant, apart from a defence concerning the admissibility of the agreement in question on account of it not being allegedly drawn on adequate stamp paper nor registered as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, was that a sister concern of the appellant named M/s. Silver Oak Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. and the respondent had entered into another agreement of even date concerning another property and there was a distinct oral agreement that the two agreements concerning the two properties would be simultaneously executed, being reciprocal in nature.

5. Parties were referred to mediation. We are informed that the parties have settled their disputes concerning the two agreements: the first which was the foundation of the cause on which the respondent sued the appellant and the second which was the cause on which the sister concern of the appellant sued the respondent.

6. Concerning the litigation between the respondent and the sister concern of the appellant CS(OS) 136/2007 is pending adjudication on the Original Side of this Court.

7. The parties have settled the disputes. Parties we mean appellant and the respondent and his two Sons Sumit Jam and Vinit Jam having joint liability; as also the sister concern of the appellant i.e. M/s.Silver Oak Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. as well as the respondent.

8. Terms of the settlement are:

(i) Mr.Suresh fain and one of his sons Sumit fain will demolish the existing building erected at 11 MG Road, New Delhi.

(ii) On an areaof approximate 100 sq.yds. at 11 MG Road,

New Delhi a building constructed is in possession of Vistar. Rights of Vistar would be acquired for which consideration to 1-' be paid would be equally shared by Suresh fain and MIs. Silver Oak Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Thereafter the construction in question (currently in possession of Vistar) would be demolished by Mr. Suresh fain and his son.

(iii) Remainder building on aforesaid plot at 11 MG Road would be demolished by Mr.Suresh fain and his son.

(iv) M/s.Silver Oak Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. will pay 4.[5] crores in flu and final settlement of all claims of Mr.Suresh fain and his Iwo sons Mr.Sumit fain and Vinit fain before December 31, 2015, over and above the amount which has already been paid by MIs.Silver Oak to Suresh fain and his Iwo sons. The amount would be paid to Mr.Suresh Jam.

(v) Simultaneously, Suresh fain and his Sons would execute a sale deed transferring their entire right, title and interest in 11 MG Road, New Delhi which would then be a vacant plot of land admeasuring 1000 sq.yds. in favour of M/s.Silver Oak. (Though the sale deed would be for 1000 sq.yds. but actual vacant possession handed over would be of 700 sq.yds. clar fying that the remainder has been acquired for road widening)

(vi) The appellant shall execute a sale deed transferring right, title and interest of the company in favour of Suresh Jam in commercial space No. CG-07 (approx. super area 1695 sqfi. on the ground floor of a building popularly known as Ansal Plaza, Hudco Place, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi in short the commercial space at Ansal Plaza)

(vii) Shri Satish Kumar Gupta, Director of M/s. Orient Carpet