Tag Archives: #delhicourt

Case Title: Court on its Own Motion v. Javed Hasan

Date of Decision: September 18, 2023

Case Number: CONT.CAS(C) 994/2023

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prateek Jalan

Introduction

This judgment pertains to Contempt of Court proceedings initiated against Mr. Javed Hasan, the defendant in a property dispute case. The defendant had repeatedly failed to comply with undertakings and orders of the court related to vacating a property and paying arrears of rent. This judgment discusses whether the defendant’s actions amounted to civil contempt.

Factual Background

The case originated from a suit filed in 2019 by the plaintiffs, Mr. Rajesh Chopra and Mr. Govind Patel, against Mr. Javed Hasan, the defendant, for possession of a shop property in New Delhi and the payment of rent, mesne profits, and electricity charges. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant had failed to vacate the property after the lease period ended, caused structural damage, and did not pay rent or electricity charges. The trial court partially decreed the case on May 4, 2022.

The defendant filed an appeal in the High Court, which was disposed of on August 1, 2022. The defendant undertook to vacate the premises within six months and pay arrears of rent in equal installments. However, he failed to adhere to this undertaking.

Subsequent orders and extensions were granted, but the defendant continuously failed to comply with the court’s directions. Contempt proceedings were initiated due to his repeated violations of court orders.

Legal Issue

The primary legal issue in this case is whether the defendant’s actions constituted civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for wilful disobedience to court orders and undertakings.

Observations and Decision of the Court

The court observed that the defendant had repeatedly failed to comply with undertakings given to the court and court orders, and his conduct amounted to wilful disobedience, constituting civil contempt.

The court held the defendant guilty of civil contempt and ordered him to appear in person on November 7, 2023, for sentencing. The court directed the defendant to vacate the property within one week, and failure to do so would result in coercive measures by the Executing Court. Additionally, the court imposed costs on the defendant, which could be recovered by the plaintiffs during execution proceedings.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary

21 Sep

Delhi High Court Upholds Decision on Flight Allowances for Unfit Pilot

Case Title: Airlines Allied Services Limited v. Ashok Kumar Malhotra

Date of Decision: September 20, 2023

Case Number: RFA 433/2016

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao

Introduction

This case involves a review petition filed by the respondent (Ashok Kumar Malhotra) against a judgment dated April 6, 2021, by the Delhi High Court. In the earlier judgment, the High Court had partially allowed the appeal filed by the appellant (Airlines Allied Services Limited), setting aside the Flying Allowance/Executive Allowance granted to the respondent by the Trial Court.

Factual Background

The respondent, a pilot, had filed a suit against the appellant, claiming various allowances, including Flying Allowance/Executive Allowance and Other Payments. The Trial Court partially ruled in favor of the respondent, granting him some of the claimed allowances. The appellant appealed the decision, which led to the aforementioned judgment.

Legal Issues

The primary issue in the review petition was the interpretation of the contract between the parties, specifically regarding Flight Related Allowances and whether they should be considered part of the respondent’s salary. Additionally, the review petition challenges whether the High Court correctly considered the admission made by the appellant in its written statement.

Contentions

The respondent contended that the High Court failed to consider the appellant’s admission that Flight Related Allowances were fixed after an amendment to FTEA in 2006.
The respondent argued that Flight Related Allowances were part of his salary, supported by salary slips and contract amendments.
The respondent argued that the High Court did not fully consider the impact of the contract amendment, which included the concept of equal pay for equal work.
The appellant argued that the respondent was unfit to fly, justifying the non-payment of Flight Related Allowances.

The appellant countered that the review petition lacked merit and did not fall under the grounds for review as per Order XLVII CPC (Civil Procedure Code).
The appellant argued that the respondent’s attempt to review the case was merely an attempt to reopen settled facts and reinterpret the contract.

Observation and Analysis

The High Court had previously considered the interpretation of the employment contract, the nature of allowances, and the fitness of the respondent to fly. The judgment explained that Flight Related Allowances were not part of the salary due to the distinction in the contract, and the respondent’s unfitness for flying justified the non-payment of such allowances.

Decision of the Court

The High Court emphasized that the interpretation of a contract, which was the primary issue in contention, could not be a subject for a review petition unless there was an error apparent on the face of the record. After analyzing the relevant contract provisions, the court concluded that the respondent was not entitled to Flight Related Allowances due to being declared unfit for flying. It further concluded that the review petition did not present any new evidence or error apparent on the face of the record, which would warrant a review under the Civil Procedure Code. The court upheld its earlier judgment and dismissed the review petition.

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary

20 Sep

NHAI’s Battle for Compensation: Deciphering Delhi High Court’s Recent Decision

Case Title: National Highways Authority of India v. D S Toll Roads Pvt. Ltd.

Date of Decision: 19/09/2023

Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM.) 546/2016 & I.A.15029/2016

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri

Factual Background

In this case, the petitioner, the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an arbitral award dated 07.07.2016. The arbitral award was made in response to disputes arising from a Concession Agreement between NHAI and the respondent, D S Toll Roads Pvt. Ltd., regarding the construction and operation of a highway in Tamil Nadu. The petitioner contested certain claims made by the respondent and sought a review of the award.

Legal Issue

The key legal issue in this case was the interpretation of the Concession Agreement and the applicability of specific clauses regarding compensation for delays and additional costs.

Observation and Analysis

The Court examined the relevant clauses of the Concession Agreement, particularly sub-clauses 13.5.1, 13.5.2, and 31.2, to determine the appropriate compensation for the delays. The Court emphasized that a comprehensive reading of the clauses, including their provisos, was essential. It concluded that compensation should be calculated in accordance with sub-clause 31.2 because the provisional completion certificate and the COD (Commercial Operation Date) were adversely affected and delayed. The Court noted the limited scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, emphasizing that the Court could only intervene if the arbitral award was patently illegal or perverse.

Decision of the Court

The Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was reasonable and legally sound. It upheld the applicability of sub-clause 31.2 of the Concession Agreement and dismissed the petitioner’s objection under Section 34. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary

20 Sep

Unlocking the Mysteries of Pledged Shares: Delhi High Court’s Interim Verdict

Case Title: DLF Limited v. PNB Housing Finance Limited & Ors.

Date of Decision: September 18, 2023

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri

Introduction

This judgment concerns two petitions filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) by DLF Limited (DLF) and Chinsha Property Private Limited (Chinsha), both shareholders in Joyous Housing Ltd. (JHL). The petitioners seek interim protection in relation to the invocation of pledged shares by Punjab National Bank Housing Finance Limited (PNB) and the subsequent sale of these shares.

Factual Background

DLF, Chinsha, and Hubtown are shareholders in JHL, holding 37.5%, 37.5%, and 25% shares, respectively. The dispute arises from a construction finance loan facility availed by JHL from PNB for a slum development project. The loan was secured by a mortgage and the entire shareholding of the three shareholders was pledged as additional security. Petitioners challenge the invocation of the pledge by PNB.

Legal Issues

The key legal issues include the validity of the pledge invocation, the assignment of the debt, the sale of pledged shares, and whether the petitioners were denied their right of redemption under Section 177 of the Contract Act.

Contentions

Petitioners argued that the sale of pledged shares was rushed and that they had offered to pay to redeem the shares, but their offer was not responded to by PNB.
PNB asserted that the sale was conducted in accordance with RBI guidelines and that the petitioners could not acquire the pledged shares themselves.
Omkara, the assignee of the debt, defended the sale and denied collusion with PNB.
Hubtown alleged collusion between PNB and DLF.

Observation of the Court

The court noted that the sale process appears to have been rushed, and the petitioners’ offer to redeem the shares was not responded to by PNB. The court also emphasized the importance of the pawnor’s right of redemption under Section 177 of the Contract Act. It questioned the process of assignment and sale and expressed doubt about whether the sale was conducted in a transparent and fair manner.

Decision of the Court

The court granted interim relief by directing Omkara to disclose the identity of the transferees of the pledged shares to the petitioners. It also ordered that further transfers of the pledged shares be suspended and not recognized by JHL.

The court suggested that the sale of pledged shares may have been premature. It emphasized that the final decision on these issues will be made by the arbitral tribunal. The court advised the parties to cooperate with the arbitral tribunal and concludes that the present proceedings are not the appropriate forum to decide the complex issues raised in this case.

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary

19 Sep

Unraveling Lease Disputes: Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Tribunal’s Award in OYO Apartments Case

Blog #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #lease

Case Title: Vivek Khanna vs. OYO Apartments Investments LLP

Date of Decision: September 18, 2023

Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 266/2023, CAV 377/2023, I.A. 13723/2023, I.A. 13724/2023, I.A. 13725/2023, I.A. 13726/2023

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri

Introduction

The case involves a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, where the petitioner challenged an award passed by an Arbitral Tribunal.

Factual Background

This case involved a dispute between the petitioner, Vivek Khanna, and the respondent, OYO Apartments Investments LLP, regarding a Lease Agreement dated February 18, 2019, for a property in Ghaziabad. The lease had a lock-in period of 36 months, during which neither party could terminate it. The lease commencement date was February 20, 2019, but the liability to pay rent began on June 1, 2019. Disputes arose, and the respondent terminated the lease in November 2019, alleging a breach by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the termination through arbitration, and the Arbitral Tribunal was formed.

The Arbitral Tribunal (AT) found that the termination of the lease by the respondent was illegal. However, it partially allowed some of the petitioner’s claims and awarded interest. It also awarded a sum to the respondent in its counterclaim. Both parties challenged the award in court.

Key Legal Issues

The key legal issues in this case revolved around the interpretation of the Lease Agreement terms, specifically regarding the payment of minimum guaranteed amounts, rent for the remaining lock-in period, and the legality of the lease termination.

Contentions of the Parties

The petitioner sought several claims, including outstanding rent, investment, and expenses incurred. The respondent raised counterclaims for damages, refund of business advance, and return of fixtures.

Decision of the Court

The court held that the grounds for challenging the award were limited, and the petitioner’s challenges did not fit within the narrow scope of patent illegality. The court upheld the award regarding rent arrears and the counterclaim. It found that the petitioner did not provide evidence of losses due to the early termination of the lease. Therefore, the court dismissed the petition and the pending applications.

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary