AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Yog, J.—With reference to the Court''s order dated 24102000 a Supplementary Affidavit has been filed, after serving a copy on the counsel representing the landlord, indicating that M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (petitioner) have accepted the proposal made by the landlord as per letter of Umesh Chandra Balutia dated 2792000 and 1192000. It is further stated that the proposal of the landlord has been duly approved by the competent authority of the Corporation and in pursuance to the same, the Corporation has already sent letter to Umesh Chandrak Balutia on 2112000. A copy of the letter is annexed as Annexure S. A, 1 to the said affidavit.
In paragraph 6 of the affidavit it is stated that out of six Bank Drafts (for a sum of Rs. 37,84,25008) four Bank Drafts Nos. 219790, 219791, 219792 and 219793 of the value of Rs. 26,66,324,000 may be handed over to the landlord Umesh Chandra Balutia. In paragraph 7 of the affidavit it is mentioned that there is in excess of Rs. 56557 in accordance with the terms settled between the parties and noted in letter dated 2112000, hence the said amount may be directed to be refunded to the Corporation by the landlord.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Sri Rajesh Tandon, appearing for the landlord (Umesh Chabdra Balutia) stated that he is instructed from the client that petitioner does not dispute the averments contained in the said Supplementary Affidavit.
In view of the above, I direct that Bank drafts if not marked �Account Payee� shall be marked �Account Payee� by the Registrar General and he shall hand over Bank Drafts Nos. 219790,219791,219792, and 219793, noted at serial No. 3,4,5 and 6 in paragraph 5 of Supplementary Affidavit the counsel for the petitioner Sri Rajesh Tandon, Senior Advocate. The remaining two Bank Drafts No. 219788 and 219789 for the value of Rs. 5,12,282 and Rs. 6.05, 644 respectively (total Rs. 11,17, 926,) mentioned at serial No. 1 and 2 in paragraph 5 of the Supplementary affidavit, shall be returned to the petitioner (M/s. Indian Oil Corporation) in the light of the orders passed today.
It is further clarified that after this settlement between the parties as referred to above all the litigation and proceedings pending between the parties with respect of the same premises including the rent etc., as on date shall be deemed to have been withdrawn by the respective parties and be disposed of accordingly by the concerned court Forum or authority.
Considering the circumstances of the case the excess amount of Rs. 5655 (as urged in paragraph 7 of the Supplementary affidavit) shall be adjusted towards cost of the writ petition to be paid to the petitioner. Consequently no amount is required to be refunded out of Total Rs. 26,66,324,00 covered under the four Bank Drafts Nos. 219790, 219791, 219792 and 219793 mentioned in paragraph 6 of the Supplementary Affidavit.
In view of the above development, it is apparent and obvious, as also agreed by all the parties counsel representing respective parties in the petition; that this Writ Petition as well as the connected writ petition No. 30284 of 1992 has lost its efficacy and have been rendered infructuous. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed subject to the direction and observations made above. Petition dismissed.