In a significant legal battle between ARG and PETITIONER, the Delhi High Court has delivered a crucial judgement. The case has witnessed ongoing conflicts and efforts to bring an end to the dispute. Stay updated for details on the court’s decision and the history of the case.
Arguments
- The Suit involves parties ARG and PETITIONER.
- Several attempts have been made to resolve the dispute.
- The Suit has a history of ongoing conflicts.
- Efforts have been made to bring an end to the dispute.
- Learned counsel on behalf of the Plaintiff opposed the application.
- The opposition was based on the assertion that the delay in filing the Written Statement was 82 days, not 41 days as claimed by the Defendant.
- The Plaintiff’s counsel argued that no cogent explanation was provided by the Defendant for the delay in filing the Written Statement.
Analysis
- The defendant No. 1 asserts that the perpetual Sub Lease relied upon by the plaintiff was not legible, causing delay in preparing the Written Statement.
- The defendant No. 1 questions the source of the plaintiff’s knowledge regarding the litigation between him and his wife, urging for an affidavit to be filed.
- There is admission of a Settlement Deed by the defendant No. 1 regarding alienation of a part of the Suit property.
- Matrimonial disputes between the defendant No. 1 and his wife, leading to physical separation in 2015, are acknowledged.
- No explicit admission of alienation or violation of possession of the first floor by defendant No. 1 is made.
- Effort was made by defendant No. 1 to compile supporting documents.
- The defendant No. 1 pursued settlement talks even after mediation concluded.
- Allegations of relinquishing/handing-over of the first floor as part of matrimonial settlement are made by the plaintiff.
- Filing of a Petition for divorce by Mutual Consent is admitted by defendant No. 1, implying some form of handing over/surrender in the Settlement Deed.
- The legibility issue of the perpetual Sub Lease and lack of notice to Defendant No. 2 for producing removed documents are disputed by the defendant.
- The suit is specifically for Performance of the Collaboration Agreement and perpetual Sub Lease issue should not hinder the Written Statement preparation.
- Assertions by the plaintiff based on information from reliable sources are challenged by defendant No. 1.
- Dispute over the unregistered nature of a Deed regarding possession of the first floor.
- Allegations of clandestine removal of documents after the mother’s demise by Defendant No. 2 are made.
- Joint possession claim of the first and second floor by defendants since oral partition by the mother is emphasized.
- Defendant No. 1 refutes allegations of Contempt of Court, citing lack of violation of possession terms.
- Lack of specific details regarding the documents taken away by Defendant No. 2 for the Written Statement preparation is highlighted.
- The significance of the first floor as the matrimonial home of defendant No. 1’s wife since 1994 is mentioned.
- Legal insignificance of an unregistered Deed in the case is emphasized.
- The relinquishment of the share of the defendant No. 1 in the first floor in favor of his wife was a consequence of matrimonial disputes and not done with malafide intention.
- Any settlement between the defendant No. 1 and his wife should be viewed in the context of the matrimonial disputes.
- The prolonged possession of the first floor by the wife of defendant No. 1 since 2015 does not constitute parting with possession by defendant No. 1.
- There is no evidence to suggest wilful disobedience of the Court’s orders by defendant No. 1, thus no contempt of court is warranted.
Decision
- Defendant No 1 must file an affidavit within four weeks disclosing any transfer of the Suit Property to his wife.
- The application is dismissed.
- Any successor of Defendant No 1 in the Suit Property will be bound by the orders in this case due to the doctrine of lis pendens.
Case Title: M/S METRO BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. MR. SHRIDHAR Y. CHITALE & ANR (2024:DHC:3932)
Case Number: CS(COMM)-793/2023
