Back
2007 Supreme(Del) 2282
High Court Of Delhi
VIPIN SANGHI
K. K MODI - Appellant
Versus
K. N. MODI - Respondents
CS (OS) 434 Of 1998
Decided On : 10/05/2007
A.S.MATHUR, ALOK DHIR, Amit Chadha, ANU SAHNEY, ANURAG DUBEY, Jayant Bhushan, JAYSHREE SHUKLA, K.N.Mody, KANIKA GOMBER, MEENESH DUBEY, MEGHALEE BARTHAKUR, NEHA KHATRI, P.K.Bansal, PRAVIN BAHADUR, PREETI DALAL, RAJAN NARAIN, S.Ganesh
The statutory right of a plaintiff to unconditionally withdraw a suit under Order xxiii Rule 1 CPC cannot be denied, and the consolidation of suits does not deprive the plaintiff of this right.
Headnote:
WITHDRAWAL - FAMILY DISPUTE - MOU dated 24. 1. 1989, IFCI - Order xxiii Rule 1 CPC - Unconditional withdrawal of suits - Disputes between Modi family members - Settlement arrived at through MOU - Chairman, IFCI's decision - Consolidated suits - Objections to withdrawal - Court's analysis and conclusion - Unconditional withdrawal of suits allowed
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a family dispute within the Modi family regarding the implementation of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 24. 1. 1989 and the decision of the Chairman, IFCI. Several suits were filed seeking reliefs related to the MOU and the Chairman's decision. The plaintiffs sought unconditional withdrawal of the suits, which was opposed by the defendants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suits were being withdrawn unconditionally and without seeking any liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The court allowed the unconditional withdrawal of the suits, subject to the rights of the parties in the remaining suits to rely upon the pleadings and documents filed in the withdrawn suits.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiffs could be permitted to unconditionally withdraw the suits, considering the objections raised by the objecting defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs had the statutory right to withdraw their suits, and the consolidation of suits did not deprive them of this right. The court also noted that no vested rights had accrued in favor of the defendants, and the withdrawal of the suits would not prejudice them.
Final Decision: The court allowed the unconditional withdrawal of the suits, subject to the rights of the parties in the remaining suits to rely upon the pleadings and documents filed in the withdrawn suits.
( 1 ) BY this order, I proceed to dispose of IA No. 47/2007 in CS (OS)No. 1394/96 and IA No. 36/07 in CS (OS) No. 434/1998, both filed under Order xxiii Rule 1 CPC by the respective plaintiffs in these suits for unconditional withdrawal of these suits.
( 2 ) THE applications are vehemently opposed by defendant no. 12, Dr. B. K. Modi and defendant no. 15, Dr. D. K. Modi in Suit No. 1394/1996 and lengthy arguments have been addressed by both sides on the question as to whether the plaintiffs in these suits can be permitted to withdraw the suits unconditionally or not. Smt. Ginni Modi, defendant no. 1a in the aforesaid suit has also opposed the said applications. In suit No. 434/1998, Dr. D. K. Modi (Defendant no. 3a)and Ginni Modi (Defendant no. 3b) are the objecting defendants. Dr. B. K. Modi is not arrayed as defendant in the said suit. Background Facts:
( 3 ) LATE Shri Gujjar Mal Modi had five sons; (i) Sh. K. K. Modi, (ii) Shri V. K. Modi, (iii) Shri S. K. Modi, (iv) Dr. B. K. Modi and (v) Shri U. K. Modi.
( 4 ) HIS younger brother Kedar Nath Modi (K. N. Modi) has three sons; (i) Shri M. K. Modi, (ii) Shri Y. K. Modi and (iii) Dr. D. K. Modi.
( 5 ) THE Modi family has been in control of a large number of public limited companies, which hold properties, assets and businesses. The family also holds various other assets. Disputes surfaced between the members of the family and two groups were formed. Group 'a' comprises of Shri K. N. Modi and his three sons, and Group 'b' comprising of 5 sons of Late Gujjar Mal Modi.
( 6 ) A settlement was arrived at, and reduced to a Memorandum of understanding (MOU) dated 24. 1. 1989 with the intervention of Financial institutions, such as Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd. (IFCI), who also had a stake in seeing that the disputes get amicably resolved, as they have heavily invested in the various companies in question. Parties began implementing the understanding so arrived at. Clause 9, inter alia, stated that all disputes, clarifications etc. in respect of the implementation of the understanding shall be referred to the Chairman, IFCI or his nominee whose decision will be final and binding on the groups. In this process various representations were made to the Chairman and Managing Director of IFCI. The chairman, IFCI submitted his report on 8th December, 1995 on the disputes referred to him, indicating therein that the MOU already stood implemented to a large extent. As per the said report Rs. 2135. 55 lacs was payable by Group 'b' to Group 'a' by 1st January, 1996.
( 7 ) ON 20. 5. 1996 suit No. 1394/96 was filed by Shri K. K. Modi and shri S. K. Modi (Group B) to seek various reliefs of declaration and injunction, inter alia, to enforce the MOU dated 24. 1. 1989 and in respect of the decision of the Chairman, IFCI. In 1998, Sh. M. K. Modi (Group'a') filed suit No. 434/98. This suit primarily pertained to one of the companies viz. Modipon Ltd. Subsequently, Sh. U. K. Modi and Sh. V. K. Modi (of Group 'b') filed suits bearing nos. 2712/1998 and 2694/1998 respectively. These suits also sought, inter alia, the declaration that the MOU dated 24. 1. 1989 is binding on all the parties and also sought reliefs regarding the decision of the Chairman IFCI. On 28. 9. 1999, the above four suits were consolidated.
( 8 ) COMMON issues have been framed in all the suits, and all the parties have made a statement that they do not wish to lead any evidence and that the suits may be decided on the basis of the record.
( 9 ) SHRI. K. K. Modi (Group B) and Shri. M. K. Modi (Group A) signed an "aide Memoire" on 22. 3. 2003 to resolve their inter se disputes. Clause 1 (3)of the Aide Memoire provides for withdrawal of pending cases including in particular, suit Nos. 1394/96 and suit No. 434/98 by the respective plaintiffs.
( 10 ) IN pursuance of the said mutual agreement between Shri. K. K. Modi and Shri M. K. Modi, the aforesaid applications have been filed by them to withdra
