Full Text
Translation output
A-40 & 41
% 26.7.2011
Present: Mr.Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner in Cont.Cas(C) No.48/2011 and respondent in Cont.Cas(C) No.498/2011.
Mr.Dinesh Sabharwal, Advocate with Mr.Neeraj Saraf for respondent in Cont.Cas(C) No.48/2011 and petitioner in Cont.Cas(C) No.498/2011.
Mr.J.K.Sethi, Advocate for respondent no. 3 in
Cont.Cas(C) No.48/2011.
+Cont.Cas(C) No.48/2011 & Cont.Cas(C) No.498/2011
*
Parties have by and large settled their disputes.
Mr.R.L.Janwar, the constituted attorney of AIL is present in the
J t court. Learned counsel for AIL under instructions from his chent states that he is willing to hand over the disputed premises back to the landlord subject to certain conditions; the conditions being that the possession will be handed over without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the AIL to recover/seek refund of Rs.1.35 crores paid to Saraf Project Pvt. Ltd. as also the recovery of damages; further that there would be no acceptance of any liability of AIL towards payment of arrears of rent or electricity; learned counsel for the applicant AIL further states that since there are some bottles of liquor (although licenced) lying in the premises he seeks some time to relocate the said property and for this purpose he has also written to the Excise Authorities wherein it has also been brought to their notice that the liquor licence in the name of
"Lizard Lounge" proprietor Neeraj Saraf has since been
2011:DHC:8237 surrendered.
The two sets of keys (number 23 and 313) of the premises have been handed over to the petitioner (through his counsel).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this
Court to the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent Saraf Project Pvt. Ltd. wherein in terms of Clause-II
(page 26 of paper book) the liability of electricity and water consumed in the demised premises was upon the respondent i.e.
Saraf Project Pvt. Ltd.. The order of this Court dated 01.6.2011 in
W.P.(C) No.5208/2010 titled as "Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. BSES
(Rajdhani Power Ltd.) & Anr." had also directed Saraf Project Pvt.
Ltd. to clear all the electricity dues of the BSES. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in terms of this order dated 01.6.2011 a notice dated 08.7.2011 has already been issued by the petitioner to the BSES.
Saraf Project Pvt. Ltd. has admitted its liability qua these electricity dues. Learned counsel for Saraf Project Pvt. Ltd. states that an SLP qua the actual amount payable to the BSES is pending.
He seeks an outer limit of three months to clear all the electricity dues of the BSES. He further states that he has a right to recover the security deposit which he had deposited with the petitioner/landlord, damages etc. as per the agreements interse between the parties. The petitioner/landlord has a counter claim of
10 months rents which is due and payable from Saraf Project Pvt.
Ltd. All the parties are at liberty to vent their grievances through appropriate legal forum.
With these directions the petition is disposed of.
JULY 26, 2011 nandan
INDERMEET KAUR, J. r- r'-re/y3^P-), Oe
% 26.7.2011
Present: Mr.Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner in Cont.Cas(C) No.48/2011 and respondent in Cont.Cas(C) No.498/2011.
Mr.Dinesh Sabharwal, Advocate with Mr.Neeraj Saraf for respondent in Cont.Cas(C) No.48/2011 and petitioner in Cont.Cas(C) No.498/2011.
Mr.J.K.Sethi, Advocate for respondent no. 3 in
Cont.Cas(C) No.48/2011.
+Cont.Cas(C) No.48/2011 & Cont.Cas(C) No.498/2011
*
Parties have by and large settled their disputes.
Mr.R.L.Janwar, the constituted attorney of AIL is present in the
J t court. Learned counsel for AIL under instructions from his chent states that he is willing to hand over the disputed premises back to the landlord subject to certain conditions; the conditions being that the possession will be handed over without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the AIL to recover/seek refund of Rs.1.35 crores paid to Saraf Project Pvt. Ltd. as also the recovery of damages; further that there would be no acceptance of any liability of AIL towards payment of arrears of rent or electricity; learned counsel for the applicant AIL further states that since there are some bottles of liquor (although licenced) lying in the premises he seeks some time to relocate the said property and for this purpose he has also written to the Excise Authorities wherein it has also been brought to their notice that the liquor licence in the name of
"Lizard Lounge" proprietor Neeraj Saraf has since been
2011:DHC:8237 surrendered.
The two sets of keys (number 23 and 313) of the premises have been handed over to the petitioner (through his counsel).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this
Court to the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent Saraf Project Pvt. Ltd. wherein in terms of Clause-II
(page 26 of paper book) the liability of electricity and water consumed in the demised premises was upon the respondent i.e.
Saraf Project Pvt. Ltd.. The order of this Court dated 01.6.2011 in
W.P.(C) No.5208/2010 titled as "Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. BSES
(Rajdhani Power Ltd.) & Anr." had also directed Saraf Project Pvt.
Ltd. to clear all the electricity dues of the BSES. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in terms of this order dated 01.6.2011 a notice dated 08.7.2011 has already been issued by the petitioner to the BSES.
Saraf Project Pvt. Ltd. has admitted its liability qua these electricity dues. Learned counsel for Saraf Project Pvt. Ltd. states that an SLP qua the actual amount payable to the BSES is pending.
He seeks an outer limit of three months to clear all the electricity dues of the BSES. He further states that he has a right to recover the security deposit which he had deposited with the petitioner/landlord, damages etc. as per the agreements interse between the parties. The petitioner/landlord has a counter claim of
10 months rents which is due and payable from Saraf Project Pvt.
Ltd. All the parties are at liberty to vent their grievances through appropriate legal forum.
With these directions the petition is disposed of.
JULY 26, 2011 nandan
INDERMEET KAUR, J. r- r'-re/y3^P-), Oe
JUDGMENT