FAO No.58/2009 Page 1 of 2 UNREPORTABLE * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO No.58/2009 Date of Decision: MAY 10, 2010 MCD & ANR ..... Appellants through Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advocate with Mr. Himanshu Upadhyay, Advocate versus MUNSHI RAM HARJAI & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr. Honey Taneja, Advocate with Mr. F. Hasan, Advocate for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA 1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the ‘Digest’? No REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL) It is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellants that the present appeal is covered by a Division Bench judgment of this court passed in FAO(OS) No.571/2006 in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Versus J P Saini dated September 15, 2006 against the said judgment. It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi though has preferred a Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court against the aforementioned judgment but regardless of that it has made payments to as many as FAO No.58/2009 Page 2 of 2 22 contractors inspite of the fact that they also executed similar works as were executed by respondent No.1 and awards were passed against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in their cases too. In all those 22 cases, no appeal was preferred by the appellants against the dismissal of the objections filed by them against the award. In view of the fact that the case admittedly is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court and the further fact that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi is selectively filing appeals against the dismissal of objections in the case of some contractors and not doing so in case of some others, I dismiss the appeal relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench. Respondent No.1 shall be entitled to withdraw the amount which has been deposited by the MCD in this Court. REKHA SHARMA, J. MAY 10, 2010 ka