Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SHRI SUVARAN RAJARAM BANDEKAR & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SHRI NARAYAN R. BANDEKAR & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/09/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
These appeals by special leave arise from the order
dated December 15, 1995 made in LPA Nos. 155156/95 by the
Bombay High Court. We need not traverse all the details of
the litigation. Suffice it to state that we have issued
notice primarily on the question of the power of the court
to re-schedule the payment of the amounts under the consent
decree. In a consent decree on compromise, court would be
loathe to interfere with the terms thereof by way of
modification unless both parties give consent thereto. On
the last occasion, when the matter had come up for hearing,
Shri T.R. Andhyrujina, learned senior counsel appearing for
the respondents, had stated that pursuant to the order
passed by the High Court they have complied with the
directions. Therefore, by order dated July 22, 1996, we
directed the respondents to file an affidavit as regards the
dates on which compliance had bean made. In pursuance
thereof, an affidavit has been filed in which it is stated
that all the directions have been complied with and the
payments have been made on due dates except the three
instalments to be paid in future viz.. first in this month
i.e. September 96, second in October 96, and the third and
last one, in December 96. In view of the fact that
substantial amount has already been paid, we do not think
that it is a fit case warranting interference on the special
circumstances. Another area of controversy now sought to be
raised is the failure to hand over the R.C. books in
relation to seven vehicles. It is stated in the affidavit
and records have been placed before us, to show the
circumstances in which the R.C. books could not be handed
over in relation to five vehicles. It is stated that with
regard to the sixth vehicle, it has been complied with now.
As regards the seventh vehicle, it is stated across the bar
and also in the affidavit that the vehicle was sold as a
scrap; as a consequence, R.C. book could not be handed over.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
It is stated by Mr. C. Sitaramiah, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellants that vehicle was kept stationed
and the vehicle became a junk because of the conduct on the
part of the respondent in not allowing the vehicles to be
used. That is not the controversy which we can decide here.
Under these circumstances, we do not think that these are
the cases for interference.
The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.