KAPIL KUMAR AHLUWALIA Vs. SUNITA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a contempt petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent on account of the alleged wilful disobedience of the purported undertaking given to the court pursuant to which a compromise decree in terms of the settlement arrived at before the mediation centre between the parties was passed on 23.3.2009.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Nigam, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Manoj Arora on behalf of the respondent and have also gone through the judgments relied upon by Mr. Nigam in respect of his contention.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent had given an undertaking by way of an affidavit to the court to abide by the terms and conditions of the settlement but she has not adhered to all the terms and conditions of the settlement. Four terms and conditions of settlement, contained in clause 10 of the settlement, are alleged to have not been performed by the respondent. These terms are that the respondent is stated to have undertaken to incorporate the name of the present petitioner also as a franchiser in the agreement in respect of franchisee (Arvind Mills) , who happens to be an occupant of the premises in question situated in Connaught Place where a showroom of Arvind Mills is being run. It may be pertinent here to mention that the centre of controversy, in the instant case, pertains to sharing of profits/sale proceeds/rentals of a showroom being run by Arvind Mills as a franchisee. The present petitioner and the respondent are the landlord and the tenant respectively while as the property in question is owned by somebody else, meaning thereby, that Arvind Mills is a sub -tenant in the premises in question.