Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
GUPTA STEEL INDUSTRIES
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
M/S. JOLLY STEEL INDUSTRIESPVT. LTD. & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/09/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
C. A. Nos . 13001-13005/-96 @
With/S.L.P.(C)No.18933-18937/96
O R D E R
Leave granted
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
These appeals by special leave arise from the order of
the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay made July 18,
1996 in Civil Application Nos. 89/91 in FA No.1 & 2/90.
The admitted position is that pursuant to a compromise
entered into between the parties, pending the first appeal
in the High Court, a compromise decree came to be made by
the Division Bench on 12.4.1991. Clause (2) of the
Compromise Decree reads as under;
"2,(a) The parties agree that Jolly
Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. and
Jolly Torsteel Pvt . Ltd ., the
respondents herein and the Original
plainltiffs in Suit No.446 of 1987
and Suit No.447 of 1987,
respectively, shall between them s
deposit in the Trial Court a sum of
Rs, 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
Lakhs only) in the aggregate on or
before 31st May, 1991 and a
further sum of Rs.10,40,000/-
(Rupees Ten Lakhs and forty
thousand only) on or before 29th
June, 1991;
(b) These amounts are to be
deposited in Suit No.446 of 1987 in
the Court of Additional Civil
Judge, Senior Division Pune, on
account of over payment by the
Appellants (Original Defendants)
as the Defendants were not liable
to pay and the Respondents
(Original Plaintiffs) were not
entitled to receive the same.
(c) The Appellants (Original
Defendants) are at liberty to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
withdraw the aforesaid amounts."
Admittedly, Rs.12 lakhs was deposited after expiry of
the last date, namely, June 29,1991 after one month. In the
meanwhile, the respondents filed an application for
extension of time in the trial Court. That was dismissed on
the ground that it had no jurisdiction Consequently, the
application the come to be filed in the High Court.
Similarly under clause 5(a) the appellants also agreed to
hand over possession of the disputed land and the machinery
to the receiver on or before 31st March, 1992. In view of
the default committed by the respondent, the appellants come
to file an application, on the basis of which the High Court
passed an order to maintain the status quo on March 27,
1992. The appellants have taken out contempt proceedings
against the respondents in which another Division Bench of
the High Court passed an order on July 18, 1996 stating that
the respondents have prevented the appellants from taking
possession due to the factory having been locked by the
respondent. Nonetheless, no action was taken on the contempt
petition. In the impugned order, the Division Bench passed
an order accepting the delayed payment by the respondents
and directed the appellants to pay damages for use and
occupation as may be determined by the civil Court. Thus,
these appeals by special leave.
As principle of law, the High Court was obviously
incorrect in interfering with and modifying the consent
decree unless parties agree for the same. Though it is
contended by Shri Bhimrao Naik, learned senior counsel for
the appellants, that the High Court has no power after the
expiry of the period to extend the time for the compliance
on the facts and circumstances, we do not think that we
would be justified to interfere With this order at this
distance of time. However, as regards the direction to make
payment of compensation, we do not think that it would be
appropriate at this stage to give any finding; however, the
trial Court is directed to conduct an enquiry whether the
appellant was prevented by the acts of the respondents to
remain in possession and work out the factory. In the event
of the finding being recorded that the appellant was
prevented by the acts of the respondent for working out the
factory, the appellant will not be liable to pay damages
whatsoever. On the other hand, if it is found that the
appellant had worked out the factory in view of the fact
that the High Court had granted the order of status quo, we
think that they are liable to Pay @ Rs,2,500/-P.m.
It is stated by Mr. Soil J. Sorabjee, learned senior
counsel for the respondents, that Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees
Twelve lakhs only) deposited by the respondents before the
expiry of the period six month by way Of a demand draft, has
been encashed by the appellant. The appellants are denying
the same. The trial Court is directed to verify whether the
amount was subsisting till the date of the order passed by
the High Court and whether the amount stands deposited in
any interest earning security, within a period of six months
from the date of receipt of-this order. Tn case the amount
was deposited to the credit of the suit and it had not been
invested in interest earning security then the respondents
are directed to pay interest at the commercial rate from the
date of the deposit till date of the judgment of the High
Court. In case the appellant was found to have withdrawn it,
the need to pay interest does not arise.
Mr. Bhimrao Naik further requestes that the amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) standing to the
credit of the suit, may be directed to be withdrawn by the
appellant. We are not inclined to give any direction. After
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
the enquiry into mesne profits is conducted by the trial
Count and if there is any amount due to either party, the
same may worked out accordingly by of adjustment.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of, costs.