Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARCHANA PURI, J.
M/s Sparsh Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and Others – Petitioners
Versus
MGF Developments Ltd. and Others – Respondents
CR Nos. 33, 858 of 2023
Decided On : 13-07-2023
The Court held that the application under Order 23 Proviso to Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC was not maintainable and dismissed the same. The Court also held that the direction for payment of the balance consideration amount was never a relief as prayed by the MGF Developments Ltd. nor any party to the suit, made such a prayer. The Court held that the learned lower Court, by giving direction to deposit the balance consideration amount had exceeded its jurisdiction, while giving such direction. The Court held that the release is not to be made and rightly declined by the court below, though by giving a different reasoning.
Fact of the Case:
M/s Sparsh Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Sandesh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Siddhant Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit bearing Civil Suit No. 2536-2016 for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against Cosmo Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. and Surya Propcon Pvt. Ltd. and Star City Realtech Pvt. Ltd. and Neer Builders Pvt. Ltd. or Vibrant Infratech Pvt. Ltd. who are respondents No. 2 to 6 (in CR-33-2023). During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, a compromise was effected between the parties to the lis on 23.11.2016 and on that very day, in consonance with the compromise, so reached, Exchange Deeds with various clauses of payment by way of post-dated cheques and the implications, thereof, in the eventuality of dishonour of the cheques, was effected between the parties. In consonance with the aforesaid compromise, on 24.11.2016, Exchange Deeds were also got registered before the concerned Sub-Registrar. On the basis of the aforesaid compromise, an Award was passed by the Daily Lok Adalat, on 09.12.2016.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the application under Order 23 Proviso to Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC was not maintainable and dismissed the same. The Court also held that the direction for payment of the balance consideration amount was never a relief as prayed by the MGF Developments Ltd. nor any party to the suit, made such a prayer. The Court held that the learned lower Court, by giving direction to deposit the balance consideration amount had exceeded its jurisdiction, while giving such direction. The Court held that the release is not to be made and rightly declined by the court below, though by giving a different reasoning.
Issues: 1. Whether the application under Order 23 Proviso to Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC was maintainable? 2. Whether the direction for payment of the balance consideration amount was a relief prayed by the MGF Developments Ltd. or any party to the suit?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the application under Order 23 Proviso to Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC was not maintainable as there was a pending suit between the parties, which raised identical issues as the application. The Court held that MGF Developments Ltd. could not sail in two boats, by way of filing of civil suit and at the same time, on same assertions, filing an application under Order 23 Proviso to Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC. 2. The Court held that the direction for payment of the balance consideration amount was never a relief as prayed by the MGF Developments Ltd. nor any party to the suit, made such a prayer. The Court held that the learned lower Court, by giving direction to deposit the balance consideration amount had exceeded its jurisdiction, while giving such direction.
Final Decision: Both the revision petitions were dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
ARCHANA PURI, J.
1. These are two revision petitions filed by the rival parties to assail the order dated 22.12.2022 passed by learned Court below in CM-600-2022 and application bearing IA No. 04 of 2022 in Civil Suit No. 2536-2016 titled as M/s Sparsh Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. Cosmo Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. and Others.
2. CR-33-2023 has been filed by M/s Sparsh Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Sandesh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Siddhant Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. through their authorized representatives, to challenge the denial of release of the balance sale considerations of the registered Exchange Deeds executed between the petitioner companies with respondents No. 2 to 6 (Cosmo Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. and Surya Propcon Pvt. Ltd. and Star City Realtech Pvt. Ltd. and Neer Builders Pvt. Ltd. or Vibrant Infratech Pvt. Ltd.) and the compromise deed, which forms the part of Lok Adalat Award dated 09.12.2016, which amount had been deposited by respondents No. 2 to 6 (as detailed aforesaid) before the Court below.
3. CR-858-2023 has been filed by MGF Developments Ltd. thereby, challenging the dismissal of an application bearing CM No. 600-2022 vide order dated 22.12.2022 relating to Civil Suit No. 2536-2016, wherein, it had claimed setting aside of the Lok Adalat Award dated 09.12.2016, on the ground of non-compliance of the terms of the settlement reached between M/s Sparsh Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Sandesh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Siddhant Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (plaintiffs of the suit) with Cosmo Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. and Surya Propcon Pvt. Ltd. and Star City Realtech Pvt. Ltd. and Neer Builders Pvt. Ltd. or Vibrant Infratech Pvt. Ltd. (defendants of the suit).
4. For the convenience of the discussion, the parties are referred to as petitioners and respondents, as making appearance in CR-33-2023.
5. Before proceeding further, it shall be appropriate to take note of the background facts.
6. The facts, as culled out, from the grounds of revisions and the documents, coming forth, fall in two sets.
7. First set of facts is that Emaar MGF Land Limited (now Emaar India Ltd.) was incorporated as joint venture between respondent No. 1 i.e. MGF Developments Ltd. Emaar Properties, PJSC and Sareen Estate Pvt. However, in 2016, the joint venture was subjected to demerger process. Before initiation of demerger process, various agreements were executed between joint venture partners and agreed scheme of arrangement of demerger was drawn and rights in the assets of joint venture were agreed to be distributed. The Demerger Scheme was prepared and filed and the same was sanctioned/approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, vide order dated 16.07.2018 in Company Petition No. 689 of 2016. In consequence of the same, respondent No. 1 i.e. MGF Developments Ltd. claimed right over the subject land i.e. 31.1 acres situated in village Chauma. However, in view of the scheme of arrangement, M/s Sparsh Promoters Pvt. Ltd. etc. i.e. petitioners, claimed about the development rights, having already dealt with prior to the approval Demerger Scheme on 16.07.2018.
8. This is first set of facts, as noted above.
9. The second set of facts is that M/s Sparsh Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Sandesh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Siddhant Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit bearing Civil Suit No. 2536-2016 for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against Cosmo Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. and Surya Propcon Pvt. Ltd. and Star City Realtech Pvt. Ltd. and Neer Builders Pvt. Ltd. or Vibrant Infratech Pvt. Ltd. who are respondents No. 2 to 6 (in CR-33-2023), vis-a-vis, the negotiations, having taken place between them for the exchange of land measuring 31.1 acres situated at village Chauma with 15 acres of land of the aforesaid respondents situated at village Mohammadpur Gujar, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon, in addition to the money co
AI
An application under Order 23 Proviso to Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC is not maintainable if there is a pending suit between the parties, which raises identical issues as the application.
The court emphasized the necessity of the petitioner as a party in the NCLT proceedings and deprecated the unilateral preponement of the date of hearing by respondent No.2.
The court emphasized that the present proceedings were not concerned with the rights asserted by MGF under the Scheme of Demerger or any subsequent agreements, and that MGF should initiate independen....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a compromise deed, once recorded by the court, is lawful and binding, and a subsequent suit challenging the compromise decree is not maintaina....
The court reaffirmed the binding nature of a valid settlement in property disputes, emphasizing that claims of fraud must be substantiated to alter enforceable agreements.
(1) No suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that compromise on which decree is based was not lawful.(2) Mere clever drafting would not permit plaintiff to make suit maintainable which o....
A compromise decree is binding on the parties to the suit and not on strangers, and a separate suit to challenge the compromise decree is not maintainable for strangers to the proceeding.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
