AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heads,Amount
Towards Notice period,"1,77,684/-
Severance Pay,"6,39,387/-
Gratuity,"3,81,209/-
Back wages pursuant to Execution,"8,00,000/-
Towards Interim Award,"33,19,096/-
Payments made under S.17B.,"54,56,360/-
Thereafter, Ms. Saxena filed another application seeking direction to the Bank to release excess amount in her favour [CM APPL. 33275/2019 in",
W.P. (C) 11344/2009]. While considering this application, the learned Single Judge took note of the detailed judgment disposing of the writ petition, the",
Order passed in the LPA impugning the said judgment, and the Orders passed by the Supreme Court; then, finding no merit in the application,",
observed that the judicial process was being misused and public time being wasted. In these circumstances, dismissing the application, vide judgment",
dated 26th July, 2017, the learned Single Judge imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on Ms. Saxena, directed to be paid to Delhi High Court Legal Services",
Committee. Further, the Registrar General was directed to recover the amount of cost in accordance with law.",
The present appeal, since disposed of, was then preferred by the Ms. Saxena impugning the aforesaid judgment dated 26th July, 2017 [hereinafter",
referred to ‘the impugned judgment’]. On the first date of listing, the predecessor Bench of this Court vide Order dated 6th September, 2019",
took note of the Orders of the Supreme Court and, inter alia, observed that, “(…) the amount referred to in the foregoing para are reflected in a",
table appearing in the Supreme Court order, which aggregate to Rs. 1,07,73,736/-which has admittedly been received by the appellant.†Disposing of",
the appeal, the Court inter alia made the following observations: -",
“Counsel for the respondent contends that all disputes and differences between the parties arising from all matters therefore stand duly,
settled. He further submits that in light of the Supreme Court order, the bank has decided not to press any claim for the balance amount due",
from the petitioner towards her housing loan; and the bank also has no objection to the release of her title deeds. He submits that the bank,
is willing to stand by this position provided the appellant also gives a quietus to the matter.,
In view of the above, at this stage, the appellant submits that as the bank has decided to put a quietus to the matter and decided to release",
her title deeds without demanding any further sum towards her housing loan, she also agrees that all disputes and differences with the bank",
stand duly settled; and that she does not press this appeal. Parties submit that they have no claim against each other; and that title deeds be,
released in favour of the appellant.,
In view of the stand taken by both the parties, we modify the order of the learned Singh Judge only insofar as it relates to imposition of",
costs; while upholding the order otherwise. Title deeds be released in favour of the appellant within seven working days, on proper",
verification, without any notice to the bank.",
Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.â€,
The cost imposed by the learned Single Judge stood waived. However, the matter still did not settle down. Ms. Saxena filed Review Petition",
[Review Pet. 509/2019] in LPA 578/2019 and sought review of Order dated 6th September, 2019, wherein the following observations were made: -",
“The review petitioner seeks review of order dated 06.09.2019 passed by a Division Bench of this court. The review petitioner, who",
appears in person submits that in the order, it has been incorrectly recorded that all the disputes and differences with the bank stand duly",
settled.,
We have drawn the attention of the review petitioner to paras 5.4 and 6 of the decision dated 03.12.2018 rendered by the Supreme Court in,
Civil LPA 578/2019 Page 2 of 2 Appeal Nos. 11766-11767 of 2018 (arising out of SLP No. 30205-30206 of 2017) titled Manju Saxena Vs,
Union of India & Anr. as per which she had admitted even before the Supreme Court, as she had also admitted before us, that she has",
received the amount of Rs.1,07,73,736/- as reflected in para 5.4 of the judgment. To this, the petitioner however now submits that",
Rs.33,19,096/- has not been received by her.",
We have cautioned the petitioner as to the consequences of reneging on statements made repeatedly before different courts and of swearing,
a false affidavit and wasting the time of the court. She however insists that she wishes to argue further in the matter.,
Part arguments heard.,
List on 10.12.2019.â€,
Subsequently, vide judgment dated 10th December, 2019, this Court by a detailed Order, noting the entire background in the present case, held",
that, the Review Petition was misconceived, mala fide and filed with ulterior motives. The affidavit sworn by Ms. Saxena is false and valuable time of",
the Court was being wasted. In this context, while dismissing the Review Petition, the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- which was directed to be",
deposited with the High Court of Delhi (Middle Income Group) Legal Aid Society. Further, Registrar General was directed to ensure that the cost was",
recovered from Ms. Saxena. The Bank was given an option to initiate forgery proceedings against Ms. Saxena for filing a false affidavit in this Court.,
In terms of the directions given by this Court, the matter was put up before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) as Ms. Saxena had not placed on record",
the proof of deposit of cost. The Joint Registrar vide Order dated 15th January, 2020 issued court notice to the Ms. Saxena. She appeared and",
informed the court that she had preferred an SLP against the Orders dated 6th September, 2019, 6th December, 2019, and 10th December, 2019.",
Taking note of the same, on her request, the matter was directed to be re-listed on 8th May, 2020.",
Thereafter, the SLP (Civil) Diary No. 7143/2020 (arising out of the impugned final judgment and Order dated 6th September, 2019 in LPA No.",
578/2019, 6th December, 2019 in RP No. 509/2019 and 10th December, 2019 in RP No. 509/2019 passed by this court) was listed and disposed of",
vide Order dated 13th July, 2020 in the following terms: -",
“1 Delay condoned.,
2 We have heard the petitioner, who appears in person and Mr. Sanjay Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.",
3 From the record of the proceedings, it is evident that the dispute has attained finality with the order of this Court dated 3 December 2018,",
passed by a Bench of which one of us (Indu Malhotra, J.) was a member.",
4 The order of this Court which is annexed at Annexure P-24 to the present proceedings clearly indicates that the entire claim of the,
petitioner would stand settled in terms of the amount of Rs. 1,07,73,736. Paragraphs 5.4 and 6 of the order reads as follows:",
“5.4. The Appellant has admittedly received an amount of Rs. 1,07,73,736/- under various heads:",
Heads,Amount
Towards Notice period,"1,77,684/-
Severance Pay,"6,39,387/-
Gratuity,"3,81,209/-
Back wages pursuant to Execution,"8,00,000/-
Towards Interim Award,"33,19,096/-
Payments made under S.17B.,"54,56,360/-
Total,"107,73,736/-