07 August 2024 Civil Suits >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Workplace Policies & Compliances >> COMPLIANCES  

In the case of Major Saumitra Sarkar vs. Defendants 1, 2, and 6, a legal dispute concerning property at I/1782, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi, significant developments have occurred in the ongoing execution petition. The dispute originated when Major Saumitra Sarkar sought a court order to prevent the defendants from accessing the terrace of the property. The suit was resolved on January 31, 2019, through a settlement agreement.

Key Orders and Compliance Issues:

Order dated May 3, 2023: The Court addressed concerns related to the settlement agreement's implementation. The petitioners claimed that while most aspects of the settlement had been executed, issues persisted with Clause 11 of the agreement. This clause required the respondent to handle necessary repairs due to construction work at their own cost, with requests for repairs to be made as needed up to the end of the first rainy season following the construction completion. The Court instructed the respondent to attend to these repair requests and scheduled a follow-up hearing for August 29, 2023.

Order dated October 12, 2023: The petitioners' counsel reported non-compliance with the earlier order, specifically regarding Clauses 11 and 12 of the settlement. The respondent's counsel requested additional time to provide instructions. The matter was rescheduled for January 12, 2024.

Order dated May 13, 2024: During the latest proceedings, the Court noted the respondent's failure to appear and ordered bailable warrants to be issued against them for a sum of Rs. 20,000. The Court directed the police to ensure compliance and set the next hearing for August 7, 2024.

Outstanding Issues and Resolution:

The primary outstanding issues revolve around compliance with Clauses 11 and 12 of the settlement agreement. Clause 11 mandates the respondent to undertake necessary repairs as requested by the petitioners due to construction-related damages, with such requests needing to be made up to the end of the first rainy season following construction. Despite repeated assertions of breach, no evidence of such repair requests was presented by the petitioners' counsel.

Clause 12 involves the installation of a lift at the respondent's cost, repair of any damage caused to the petitioners' flats during the lift installation, and ensuring access to the lift. The petitioners have raised concerns regarding access to the lift, which the respondent's counsel assured would be provided.

The Court emphasized that while the respondent must ensure access to the lift and address any issues related to the lift installation, the requirement to form a society for maintaining the lift was less clear and would be handled in consultation with other flat owners. Additionally, the issue of new servant quarters, as required by Clause 7, remains unresolved, with the respondent promising to deliver them once ready.

In conclusion, the execution petition has been largely resolved, with the remaining issues centered on compliance with specific clauses of the settlement agreement. The Court has addressed non-compliance through orders and continued oversight, with further proceedings scheduled for August 2024.