Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decision delivered on: 23.01.2024
RITA WADHWA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr Anil Airi, Sr Adv.
Bandooni, Advs.
Through: Mr Yakesh Anand and Ms Sonam Anand, Advs.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):
CM No.3965/2024 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 11 days in filing the appeal]
JUDGMENT
1. This is an application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 1.[1] According to the appellant, there is a delay of 11 days.
2. Mr Yakesh Anand, who appears on behalf of the respondents, says that he would have no objection if the delay is condoned. 2.[1] It is ordered accordingly.
3. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. CM No.3964/2024
4. Allowed, subject to the appellant filing legible/translated copies of the annexures, at least three days before the next date of hearing. EFA(OS) 3/2024 & CM No.3963/2024 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking interim relief]
5. Issue notice. 5.[1] Mr Yakesh Anand accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
6. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing and final disposal at this stage itself.
7. This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge.
8. The operative directions issued by the learned Single Judge which are contained in paragraph 16 of the impugned order read as follows:
9. Mr Anil Airi, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant, on instructions from Ms Nandni Sahni, Advocate, states that, apart from anything else, the appellant would be satisfied if the impugned order is modified to the extent that inter se bids submitted by the parties to the Local Commissioner (LC), as provided in Clause (b) of Paragraph 16, are directed to be made available to parties for examination, i.e., are not kept in a “sealed cover”.
10. Mr Anand says that he would have no objection if this part of Clause (b) of Paragraph 16 is modified.
11. Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, Clause (b) of paragraph 16 is modified to the extent that the parties would be entitled to look at each other’s bids submitted to the LC.
12. Needless to add, the parties will have the right to improve their respective bids.
13. The remaining directions issued by the learned Single Judge, as extracted above, will remain unaltered.
14. At this stage, learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that it would be in the interest of the parties if the inter se bids also indicate the timeframe in which money will be paid. 14.[1] It is ordered accordingly.
15. This shall also form part of the modified Clause (b) of paragraph 16 of the impugned order.
16. The appeal is dispose of, in the aforesaid terms.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J JANUARY 23, 2024