9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of the efficacy of an order based on a memorandum of compromise or agreement in court proceedings.
Summary: The case involved an appeal regarding the efficacy of an order passed by the Court based on a memorandum of compromise in a proceeding concerning the displacement and demolition of businesses for a fly-over construction. The initial order disposed of the writ petition in terms of the settlement made by the parties. However, the authorities deviated from the agreed terms by proposing alternate accommodations different from what was agreed upon. The appellants sought directions for compliance with the original settlement terms, which included providing permanent alternative accommodation on a specific stretch of road. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, stating that any breach of the settlement terms should be remedied through compensation rather than enforcement in writ jurisdiction. The Division Bench upheld this decision, citing public interest and disputed facts. The Supreme Court held that the authorities were bound by the original court orders based on the compromise memorandum, emphasizing the importance of honoring and implementing court orders to uphold the rule of law. The Court set aside the High Court's orders and directed the authorities to comply with the original settlement terms, specifically regarding the place of alternative site allotment, without any costs awarded. In conclusion, the Supreme Court emphasized the binding nature of court orders based on compromise memorandums and the importance of upholding such agreements to maintain the rule of law.
|
