M/S. Eden Automotives PVT. LTD. vs. Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta S/O. Late Shri Norang Lal Gupta

Held

The Court held that there were no good grounds to entertain the application for recall of the consent order. The Court found that the consent order dated February 2, 2018, was passed on the consent of counsel for the parties, which upheld the eviction order but granted time to vacate by July 31, 2019, with mesne profits and 10% GST. The application for recall was filed just two days before the deadline, with the Court observing that the time to vacate had lapsed and the consent order had been contravened. The Court characterized this as a blatant and cynical misuse of court processes amounting to contempt. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- payable to the respondents, recoverable as arrears of land revenue if not paid. The respondents were granted liberty to take all necessary steps as per the consent order.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s. Eden Automotives Pvt. Ltd. and its directors, filed an application seeking recall of a consent order dated February 2, 2018, passed by the High Court in a writ petition. The original writ petition challenged an eviction order passed by the Rent Tribunal and upheld by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. The consent order had upheld the eviction but granted the petitioners time to vacate the tenanted premises by July 31, 2019, with a condition to pay mesne profits along with 10% GST monthly to the respondent landlords. The application for recall was filed on July 29, 2019, just two days before the deadline to vacate, with the respondents arguing it was a ruse to stall the court's directions. The court noted that the time to vacate had lapsed and the consent order was contravened.

Key Issues

1. Whether the application for recall of the consent order dated February 2, 2018, is maintainable and ought to be allowed, considering it was passed on consent of counsel for the parties and the petitioners are now seeking to circumvent its directions. (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of consent orders and misuse of court process). Contentions: Petitioner: Sought recall of the consent order, implying grounds existed to justify such a request, though specific grounds were not detailed in the provided text beyond the implication of seeking to avoid eviction and payment obligations. Respondent: Argued that the application for recall was a palpable misuse of the court's process, a ruse to stall the directions of the court, and that the petitioners had contravened the consent order by not vacating the premises by the stipulated date. They contended that the application was filed with frivolous grounds just before the deadline lapsed.