TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds order, imposes costs on respondent for delay tactics. Expedited trial ordered.</h1> <h3>Rikta Bajaj Versus The State (NCT of Delhi) And Anr.</h3> Rikta Bajaj Versus The State (NCT of Delhi) And Anr. - TMI Issues involved:1. Setting aside the order dated 12.04.2021 passed by the learned MM (NI Act), North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in CC Nos. 19390-19400/2016 under Section 482 Cr.P.C.2. Delay in trial proceedings due to respondent No. 2's actions.3. Enforcement of Settlement Agreement dated 09.05.2019 before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.4. Stay granted on the order declaring respondent No. 2 as an 'absconder' on 06.10.2018.Issue 1: Setting aside the order dated 12.04.2021The petitioner sought to set aside the order dated 12.04.2021 passed by the learned MM, alleging that respondent No. 2 deliberately delayed the trial proceedings. The Court noted that respondent No. 2 had a history of non-appearance and delay tactics. The impugned order was found to be erroneous as it erroneously relied on an Office Order that did not apply to the situation. Despite considering setting aside the order, the Court decided against it due to the unique circumstances of the case and the undertaking given by respondent No. 2 to appear before the Trial Court.Issue 2: Delay in trial proceedingsThe delays in the trial proceedings were attributed to respondent No. 2's actions, including continuous absence and attempts to settle the matter without fulfilling commitments. The Court noted the history of non-appearance, issuance of NBWs, and the declaration of respondent No. 2 as an 'absconder' on 06.10.2018. Despite various attempts by respondent No. 2 to challenge these orders, they were upheld by the Court, indicating a pattern of delaying tactics.Issue 3: Enforcement of Settlement AgreementThe parties had entered into a Settlement Agreement in 2019, where respondent No. 2 agreed to pay a certain amount but failed to honor the commitment fully. The Court observed that only a partial payment had been made, highlighting respondent No. 2's failure to fulfill the terms of the agreement. This failure to adhere to the Settlement Agreement further demonstrated respondent No. 2's conduct in evading legal processes.Issue 4: Stay granted on the order declaring respondent No. 2 as an 'absconder'The Court found that the stay granted on the order declaring respondent No. 2 as an 'absconder' was not justified, as it was based on an Office Order that did not apply to the situation. The Court emphasized that respondent No. 2 had a history of delaying tactics and non-compliance with legal proceedings, leading to the dismissal of previous petitions challenging the 'absconder' status. Despite respondent No. 2's undertaking to pay costs and appear before the Trial Court, the Court imposed additional costs and directed expedited trial proceedings to conclude the case promptly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
