9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wherein the applicants sought interim reliefs of injunction restraining Suresh group (respondents Nos. 4 to 12) from dealing with or disposing of any of the properties, assets standing in the name of Suresh group, as set out in paragraph 13 of these applications including one-third share of Suresh group in Gokhle Road property and pass any such order or directions as this Bench deems fit and proper in this case. 2. The applicants herein are referred as Ramesh group and respondents Nos. 4 to 12 are referred as Suresh group. 3. The brief facts of the application : The Ramesh group and the Suresh group are family members of one Piyarelall who formed Piyarelall companies. These two groups, being members of the joint family of late Piyarelal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch so, the interim reliefs sought by the applicants as well. The paragraphs 17 and 24 of the consent order are as follows : 17. All the papers and documents available in Mumbai with the Suresh group in relation to each of the companies, which are going to the Ramesh group including details and particulars of all bank accounts, debtors, creditors and particulars of all assets and liabilities thereof as prepared by the auditors of the said companies, M/s. V. Singhi and Associates and verified by M/s. R. M. Kothari and Co., chartered accountants, appointed by the Ramesh group, kept in escrow with Shri Manoj Bagaria shall be forthwith made over by the said escrow agent to the Ramesh group. The branch account and the companies to be transferre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l P. Ltd., not made available to the applicant, for having suffered from under-invoicing amounting to Rs. 3,17,79,086.85 done to the benefit of the Suresh group at the expense of the Ramesh group, for having incurred loss of Rs. 6,61,71,239 on account of maize transaction with STCL Ltd., made by respondent No. 4, for having Texcomash P. Ltd., claimed Rs. 15,62,50,000 as compensation against R. Piyarelall Import and Export Ltd., for cancellation of contract of purchase of rice account, for having the Ramesh group entitled to be indemnified for Rs. 14,85,650 on account of claim of several parties on account of Mumbai Branch liabilities arose out of transaction undertaken at the issuance of respondent No. 4 after March 31, 2006, for having Ram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nch not being a money decree, the sum not being definite, if at all liability and indemnity clauses in paragraphs 17 and 24 of the consent order are declaratory, then it might give right to the applicants to file suit against the same, in support of it, Suresh Group, counsel filed citations-(a) Kailashpati Singhania v. Ram Gopal Gupta AIR 1973 All 316 ; (b) Mt. Khairunnissa Bibi v. Oudh Commercial Bank AIR 1933 All 269 [FB] ; (c) Sudhir Kumar v. Baldev Krishna Thapar [1969] 3 SCC 611 (d) Mool Chand Wasakhi Ram v. Tola Ram Suba Ram AIR 1963 Punj 387 ; and (e) Abdul Mohammad v. Arumugham Pillai [1979] 1 MLJ 319, to state that the scope of section 47 of the CPC is limited to deal with the execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the consent order, the parties are at liberty to pursue further in working out the consent order so as to carry the order into effect, as long as variation to the consent order is not sought. Even in Manish Mohan Sharma's case (supra), the apex court dealt with the said clause and order is passed basing on that clause alone. This clause "liberty to apply" is vividly discussed and applied in Cristel v. Cristel [1951] 2 All ER 574 (CA), thereafter applied in many cases across the world, including in our country. 13. Since the consent order is yet to be interpreted as to who is liable to whom, who is to indemnify whom, if so, quantifications to that effect, till such time, an attachment under the fold of restraint order against the Suresh g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order solely in favour of one party where corresponding obligations on the party seeking relief are subsisting. 16. In the present case the liabilities mentioned in the applications are calculated in terms of money by the applicants on their own, it is neither the money claim declared by this Bench nor the claim on consensus arrived at between the parties, when one party asserts and the other party denies, necessarily the fact is to be proved by the parties entitled to get it executed. The respondents, having denied the claims made by the applicant and also having stated that the applications itself are not maintainable ; this Bench at this stage cannot consider those amounts as decreed amounts without the claims and calculations being pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
