SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Bom) 495

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
K.R. SHRIRAM, J.
Bharat Hari Singhania & Others – Applicants
Versus
Sushila Singhania & Others – Respondents
Notice Nos. 1653, 1786 of 2015 & Execution Application Nos. 1913, 2006 of 2015
Decided On : 06-05-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant :Mr. Dinyar Madon, Senior Advocate, Mr. Nirman Shah, Rakesh Jain, Mr. Sairam Subramanian Khaitan & Co.
For the Respondent:Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, Mr. S.U. Kamdars, Senior Advocates, Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, Naseem Patrawala, S.M. Sabrad, Malvi Ranchoddas, Saumya Srikrishna, Wadia Ghandy & Co.

Important Point—Even in cases of joint families award can be executed in part where shares of decree holders are defined or where share is not in dispute.

Headnote:Execution of Award—Partnership Firm—Three groups were distributing assets of a partnership firm—Individual groups were like three individual joint families who were partners in firm—Award (decree) in present case cannot be treated as a joint decree—Even in cases of joint families it can be executed in part where shares of decree holders are defined or where share is not in dispute---In view of the separate rights and obligations of Calcutta Group, share of Calcutta Group can be executed independently---Bombay Group cannot withhold giving possession to Calcutta Group on the basis that they will not hand over possession of Juhu property unless they get or acquire title to Kanpur properties---That has to be dealt between Bombay Group and Kanpur Group.

       Result—Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

K.R. SHRIRAM, J.

1. The judgment creditors in execution application No. 2006 of 2015, who, henceforth are referred to as Calcutta Group for the sake of convenience, were the claimants in an arbitration before Mr. Justice S.N. Variava (Retd.) as Sole Arbitrator. The judgment debtors to this execution application were the respondents in the arbitration and participated as two separate groups. The judgment debtor nos. 1 to 7, who hereinafter are referred to as Kanpur Group, were respondent nos. 1 to 9 in the arbitration and the judgment debtors nos. 8 to 14, who hereinafter are referred to as Bombay Group, were respondent nos. 10 to 16 in the arbitration. Respondent nos. 1 and 4 in the arbitration have since expired. In the arbitration the claimants sought distribution of the assets of the erstwhile partnership firm of M/s. J.K. Bankers (Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers). The Ld. Arbitrator passed an award dated 4th August, 2008 to which certain minor modifications were carried out on 12th September, 2008 (the said award) and distributed the properties. The properties were distributed as under:-

DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTIES

S. No.

Party & Particulars

1.

Claimants (Calcutta Group)

(i) Kamala Cottage, Property No. 6 at Juhu, Mumbai (Property at Sr. No. 5)

2.

Respondent Nos. 1 to 9 (Kanpur Group)

(i) Property No. 29/1 at Kanpur known as Kamla Tower (Property at Sr. No. 1)

(ii) Property No. 22/134 at Kanpur known as J.K. Kothi (Property at Sr. No. 2)

(iii) Property No. 11 Cants, Kanpur known as Ganga Kuti (Property at Sr. No. 3)

(iv) Property No. 6 at Cantt, Kanpur (Property at Sr. No. 4)

(v) Property No. 20/193, Chatai Mohal, Kanpur (Property at Sr. No. 9)

And receive INR 22.71 crores from the Calcutta Group.

3.

Respondent Nos. 10 to 16 (Bombay Group)

(i) Property No. 37, Kanpur known as Kamla Retreat (Property at Sr. No. 6)

(ii) Property No. 88/473, Hiraman Purva at Kanpur (Property at Sr. No. 7)

(iii) Property No. 80/80 at Kanpur known as Oil Mills (lands) (Property at Sr. No. 8)

(iv) Property No. 20/131, Patkapur, Kanpur (Property at Sr. No. 10)

And receive INR 23.40 crores from the Calcutta Group.

2. The Calcutta Group, the Bombay Group and the Kanpur Group were all members of the Singhania family that was carrying on business under the name and style of “M/s. J.K. Bankers” (Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers), a partnership firm. Considerable immovable properties were brought into the partnership firm.

3. In 1987, by way of a family settlement, the partnership firm was dissolved and a Deed of Dissolution was executed by all the parties. The parties agreed to distribute the immovable properties in specie free from encumbrances as provided in the Deed of Partnership dated 21st February, 1980. The distribution was to be completed as soon as possible and the parties were to strive to accomplish the same by 31st May, 1987. The properties are as under:-

“1. Property No. 29/1 at Kanpur known as Kamla Tower

2. Property No. 22/134 at Kanpur known as J.K. Kothi

3. Property No. 11 Cants, Kanpur known as Ganga Kuti

4. Property No. 6 at Cantt, Kanpur

5. Property No. 6 at Juhu, Mumbai

6. Property No. 37, Kanpur known as Kamla Retreat

7. Property No. 88/473, Hiraman Purwa at Kanpur

8. Property No. 80/80 at Kanpur known as Oil Mills (lands)

9. Property No. 20/193, Chatai Mohal, Kanpur

10. Property No. 20/131, Patkapur, Kanpur

11. Property No. 360, Harish Ganj, Kanpur

12. Property No. 363, Harish Ganj, Kanpur

13. Property No. 361, Harish Ganj, Kanpur

14. Property No. 14/128, M.G. Marg, Kanpur

15. Property No. 80/71, Cooper Ganj, Kanpur.”

4. Even though the distribution was to take place as far as possible by 31st May, 1987, the parties could not agree to the manner of distribution of the partnership assets. Ac





































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top