Karnataka High Court: The Single Judge Bench of Tara Vitasta Ganju, J. dismissed the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, considering the delayed deposition of payment and non-compliance of the terms of the mediated settlement agreed by the parties.
Background
The case started when the petitioners and the respondent executed a memorandum of settlement (MOU) on 27 November 2019. In view of mediated settlement between the parties and in terms of the settlement, the judgment-debtors had agreed to pay a sum of ₹4,50,000 to the decree-holder on or before 26 June 2020.
The MOU also contained a clause that in the event of failure to make the payment within time, the judgment-debtors would execute a registered sale deed in favour of the decree-holder in respect of the suit scheduled property. A decree was passed by the learned trial court on 28 September 2022 in terms of the mediated settlement. Since the judgment-debtors did not make the payment on time, the respondent decree-holder filed the execution petition.
The petitioners submit that the payment in terms of the MOU had already been complied with and thus the execution could not have been allowed. He further submits that the payment was delayed in view of COVID-19 Pandemic. However, the payment has now been made. Thus, the application was filed objecting to the execution proceedings. It is contended that the amounts have already been deposited by way of DD with the Axis Bank, Bengaluru and the memo setting out the same has already been filed on 20 April 2022.
The trial court after examining the facts and the documents placed before it, came to a conclusion that the application filed by the petitioners judgment-debtors is without any merit and thus was dismissed. The respondent decree-holder was also directed to deposit a sum of ₹50,000 before the next date of hearing in terms of the MOU. The petitioners aggrieved by the trial court dated 28 September 2022, filed this petition objecting to the execution proceedings after depositing the payment.
Decision and Analysis
The Court observed that instead of making payment on or before 26 May 2020, the payment was made almost 2 years later on 3 March 2022 by the petitioners judgment-debtors. The MOU was duly signed and confirmed by the parties as well as their counsel. Since the judgment-debtors failed to comply with the terms of the mediated settlement as extracted in the MOU, the consequences would follow.
The Court noted that it was not disputed by the petitioners judgment-debtors that the payment has not been made as per timeline as set out in the MOU. All that has been contended by the petitioners judgment-debtors is that they have made the payment, but after a delay.
Concededly, there was no agreement between the parties to make payment beyond the stipulated date. The MOU, however, does provide for execution of the sale deed in favour of the respondent decree-holder by receiving the balance consideration, in the event of the payment not being made in time.
This Court after examining the application filed by the petitioners judgment-debtors as well as the impugned order found no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The Court held that there was no ground set up in the application as to why the MOU was not complied with by the decree-holder. The respondent decree-holder has confirmed that the balance consideration in terms of the order dated 12 December 2019 has already been deposited. The Court dismissed the petition accordingly.
[Venkatesh v. Mahadeva, 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 3004, decided on 21-1-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Naik N.R, Advocate
For the Respondent: Dharmesh A, Advocate
Buy Constitution of India HERE
