JUDGMENT- P.S. PATANKAR, J. :---Both these applications are filed by the two plaintiffs (respondents in Appeals) against original defendant (appellant in appeal). The prayer made is the same i.e. to relieve the plaintiffs-applicants from the consequences envisaged by Clause 6 of the consent terms entered into between the parties in the aforesaid two appeals dated 9-4-1991. The prayer arises in view of the following facts. Hereafter the reference shall be made to the parties as plaintiffs and defendant.

2.The plaintiffs are owners of two re-rolling Steel Mills situated at Pune. Two agreements for conducting those 2 mills were entered into between two plaintiffs and defendant on 9-4-1980 and supplementary agreement on clarifying the term regarding the payment of compensation. The period fixed was 3 years from the date of taking over possession i.e. 12-4-1980. As the period came to an end, the plaintiffs on 19-4-1983 demanded possession of machinery and to stop incidental use of premises. However, the defendant invoked viz. major clause and declined to follow the agreements. Hence on 11-2-1987 the plaintiffs issued notices to the defendant claiming possession of machinery and the prem

Click Here to Read the rest of this document