Hydraulics And Pneumatics [India] Llp vs. M/S. Metal Arc Agri. Llp

NON-REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 721
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 27417 OF 2023
HYDRAULICS AND PNEUMATICS
[INDIA] LLP …PETITIONER
VERSUS
M/S. METAL ARC AGRI. LLP
AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. The present petition challenges the judgment and final
th
order dated 29 November 2023 passed by the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to
as the “Revisional Court”), whereby the revision petition filed
by the Respondent No.1 herein was disposed of thereby
th
setting aside the order dated 6 April 2023 passed by the
Executing Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Faridabad
(hereinafter referred to as the “Executing Court”) and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2025.05.17
16:21:34 IST
Reason:
remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
1

2. The facts in the case are not in dispute. The land
owned by the petitioner-LLP, which was earlier a private
limited company, was acquired vide Notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
th
referred to as “Act”) dated 4 July 2012. Notification under
st
Section 6 of the Act for the same came to be issued on 31
th
December 2012 and the Award came to be passed on 29
May 2013. Subsequently, the original LLP agreement was
executed and the petitioner-LLP was converted into the
Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) from a private limited
company. The petitioner-LLP filed a Land Acquisition Case
No.4 of 2014, challenging the award passed by the Land
th
Acquisition Officer dated 29 May 2013. The Reference
th
Court passed an Award on 20 December 2019 enhancing
the compensation at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per sq. yard.
After making deductions towards purported development
charges, the landowners were awarded an enhanced amount
of Rs.56,000/- per sq. yard with statutory benefits along
with interest. An appeal being RFA No.2532 of 2021 was
filed by the petitioner-LLP, challenging the Award of the
Reference Court.
2

3. It appears that for execution of the award passed by the
Reference Court, the petitioner-LLP filed an execution petition
before the Executing Court during the pendency of the said
RFA before the High Court.
st
4. Notice was issued in the said execution petition on 31
August 2020.
It further appears that, Respondent No.1 had entered
5.
into a supplementary agreement showing Respondent No.1
as a partner of the petitioner-LLP having acquired 11.33%
shareholding from one of the original partners namely
Anirudh Kumar.
On the basis of the said supplementary agreement,
6.
Respondent No.1 filed an application under Order XXI, Rule
15(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter
referred to as, “CPC”), before the learned Executing Court.
The learned Executing Court held that the LLP was having a
separate entity, it was a juristic person distinct from
shareholders and that the shareholder did not have any
independent rights over the company’s assets. Observing the
same, the application filed by Respondent No.1 came to be
rejected. Being aggrieved thereby a revision petition came to
3

be filed by Respondent No.1.
7. Learned Revisional Court held that the award was in
the nature of joint decree conferring and creating the rights
in favour of all the partners in the LLP firm. As such,
Respondent No.1 was entitled to invoke the provision of
Order XXI, Rule 15(2) of the CPC, so as to protect their
interest in the award. The Revisional Court, therefore, set
aside the order of the Executing Court and remanded the
matter to the Executing Court to give an opportunity to all
the parties to produce all the relevant documents, as regards
th
the execution of the supplementary agreement dated 17
December, 2018.
8. We have heard Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-LLP and Shri
Nidhesh Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of Respondent No.1.
9. Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner submits that the learned
Revisional Court had grossly erred in interfering with the
well reasoned judgment and order passed by the learned
Executing Court. It is submitted that the order passed by
the Executing Court was based on the judgment of this
4

Court in the case of Bacha F. Guzdar v. Commissioner of
1
Income Tax, Bombay . He further submits that the
supplementary agreement itself is a bogus agreement being
unsigned one and therefore not enforceable in law.
10. Shri Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
fairly concedes that insofar as the original partner Anirudh
Kumar is concerned, the position is not disputed that he has
11.33% shareholdings.
Per contra, Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned Senior Counsel
11.
appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1, submits that the
learned Revisional Court has rightly remanded the matter to
the learned Executing Court for considering it afresh. He
further submits that the petitioner has withdrawn the entire
amount deposited by the State Government and as such if no
orders are passed by this Court, Respondent No.1 would be
left with no remedy. He further submits that out of the
amount deposited in the Registry of this Court vide order
th
dated 6 May 2024, some amount is already paid to Anirudh
Kumar. He, therefore, submits that the remaining amount is
also required to be paid to Anirudh Kumar.
12. Shri Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, submits that he
appears on behalf of the said Anirudh Kumar also, who has
1 (1954) 2 SCC 563
5

filed an impleadment application.
13. This Court is required to take note of a subsequent
development. After this Court entertained the proceedings
th
and granted stay on 14 December 2023, Respondent No.1
filed an application before the Executing Court, for
withdrawing the application filed by it under Order XXI Rule
15(2) of the CPC. Further, a fresh application was filed under
Order XXI, Rule 15(2) of the CPC on behalf of said Anirudh
Kumar.
14. Confronted with this situation, Shri Gupta, learned
Senior Counsel, submits that since the petitioner was
opposing the application of Respondent No.1, Anirudh Kumar
was left with no other alternative but to file an application
himself.
15. It appears from the submissions of Shri Gupta, learned
Senior Counsel that Respondent No.1 and the said Anirudh
Kumar are two sides of the same coin.
16. We, however, cannot ignore the fact that after revision
petition was allowed by the learned Revisional Court and the
matter was remanded, Respondent No.1 has withdrawn the
application filed before the learned Executing Court.
17. When there is no application on behalf of Respondent
No.1 pending before the learned Executing Court, the order
6

passed by the Executing Court in favour of Respondent No.1
is totally rendered infructuous.
18. In that view of the matter, we find that the special leave
petition itself does not survive and is disposed of as such.
19. Insofar as the application of the said Anirudh Kumar is
concerned, we direct the learned Executing Court to consider
the same in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity
to all the parties and decide the same expeditiously.
20. The amount deposited in the Registry of this Court be
remitted back to the learned Executing Court for passing
appropriate orders, in accordance with law.
21. We further clarify that none of the observations made in
the impugned judgment and order passed by the Revisional
Court would be taken into consideration by the learned
Executing Court while passing an order on the application
under Order XXI Rule 15(2) of the CPC of the said Anirudh
Kumar.
22. Pending applications, including the applications for
impleadment, shall stand disposed of.
..............................J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
7

…........................................J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 07, 2025.
8