Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S Tripower Enterprises (Private) ... vs State Bank Of India on 15 December, 2022
Bench: Ajay Rastogi, Bela M. Trivedi
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Miscellaneous Application No. 1350/2022
IN
CIVIL APPEAL No. 2373/2020
M/S TRIPOWER ENTERPRISES
(PRIVATE) LIMITED Applicant(s)
VERSUS
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
ORDER
This miscellaneous application has been filed by the applicant – M/s Tripower Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. The prayer reads as under:
“a. allow the present application and clarify that the observations in para 16 of the judgment dated 24 th April, 2020 in C.A. NO. 2373 of 2020 of this Hon’ble Court, to the effect that, “we say so because the decree passed by the court of competent jurisdiction, which had attained finality with the dismissal of the special leave petition by this court on 11.05.1992 cannot be disregarded”, will not come in the way of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai from adjudicating the issues as set out in the common order dated 09.09.2022 of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras, in W.P. 32535 of 2019 and batch, more particularly para 23, 24, 25, 27 thereof;
b.allow the present Application to further clarify the Signature Not Verified observation made in para 20 of the above mentioned Digitally signed by Sanjay Kumar Date: 2022.12.16 17:38:48 IST judgment directing the Bank to return the remaining Reason: Original Title Deeds to the Applicant in view of the observations made by this Hon’ble Court at para 14;1
c. pass such other further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case and in the interest of justice.” Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.11 (A.R. Sridharan) in the original proceedings.
It is brought to our notice that in a dispute pending before the High Court in reference to the self-same property bearing old Paimash No. 722/4 admeasuring 1.80 acres of land. The High Court with consent of the parties, disposed of the writ petition by judgment dated 9th September, 2022 and observed in para 21 as under:
“After lengthy arguments by the parties, which includes the assistance of learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel for the bank, it was agreed by all the parties that the matter may be sent to the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration after taking the issues from respective parties and, accordingly, it may be decided by the said officer, who would not be influenced or governed by the decree of the civil court, but would independently decide the issues raised by the parties against each other.” It may be noticed that the Patta issued on 16th June, 1988 in reference to the self-same property bearing Paimash No. 722/4 admeasuring 1.80 acres of land in furtherance to which a decree was passed by the trial Court at one stage dated 16 th February, 1990 which although travelled upto this Court and the SLP came to be dismissed by order dated 11 th May, 1992, indisputedly came to be 2 cancelled by the competent authority by order dated 11 th February, 1991 and this fact was not brought to the notice of this Court when judgment was passed on 24th April, 2020.
Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that what gathers from the observation made by this Court in para 16 of the judgment appears to be that the decree which was passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction dated 16 th February, 1990 after dismissal of the SLP on 11 th May, 1992 cannot be disregarded and if that is being read in isolation, there remains ambiguity as to what would be ambit and scope of the prescribed authority i.e. the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration while examining the dispute which is pending in reference to the self-same subject property (Paimash No.722/4 admeasuring 1.80 acres of land), more particularly when the parties have consented before the High Court, as referred to in para 21 of the judgment dated 9th September, 2022, including Respondent no.11 (A.R. Sridharan) that the prescribed authority may decide the pending dispute entirely on its own merits and would not be influenced by the decree of the Civil Court dated 16 th February, 1990 of which reference has been made by this Court in para 16 of the judgment.
In the given facts and circumstances, learned counsel submits 3 that at least to avoid ambiguity, it needs a clarification from this Court that what being referred to with regard to decree dated 16 th February, 1990, since Patta remained cancelled later by order dated 11 th February, 1991 and that being the subject matter of adjudication, the prescribed authority has to look into the material on record placed by the parties inter se and to decide on its own merits in accordance with law.
Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.11 (A.R. Sridharan), on the other hand, submits that there is no ambiguity in para 16 and this Court in an unequivocal terms clearly expressed its view that the decree of the Court dated 16 th February, 1990 since has attained finality after the SLP being dismissed on 11th May, 1992 cannot be disregarded and it was left open for the prescribed authority to consider the pending complaint regarding the self-same property in accordance with law and that was the reason for which his client also consented while the writ petition pending before the High Court came to be disposed of, of which reference has been made in para 21 of the judgment dated 9 th September, 2022 and the judgment of this Court needs no further clarification.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do find that para 4 16 of the judgment of which reference has been made, is self-
explained but still in the interest of justice, we clarify leaving no ambiguity/confusion in the minds of the litigating parties that the proceedings pending before the prescribed authority i.e. the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration before whom the proceedings are pending in reference to the self-same property (Paimash no.722/4 admeasuring 1.80 acres of land) may examine the inter se rights of the parties independently on its own merits in accordance with law, may also take note of the fact that the Patta initially issued in favour of Respondent no.11 (A.R. Sridharan) dated 16th June, 1988 in reference to which decree was passed on 16 th February, 1990, but the Patta itself dated 16th June, 1988 was later cancelled by the competent authority by order dated 11 th February, 1991 the legal effect is open to be examined in the pending proceedings.
With this clarification/modification, the miscellaneous application stands disposed of.
……………………………J. [AJAY RASTOGI] ……………………………J. [BELA M. TRIVEDI] NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 15, 2022.
5
ITEM NO.15 COURT NO.6 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Miscellaneous Application No. 1350/2022 in C.A. No. 2373/2020 M/S TRIPOWER ENTERPRISES (PRIVATE) LIMITED Applicant(s) VERSUS STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) ( IA No. 68344/2022 – CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION and IA No. 162848/2022 – CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION and IA No. 162850/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No. 112830/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES and IA No. 115507/2022
- PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 15-12-2022 This application was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Viswanathan K.V., Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv.
Mr. A. Radhakrishnan, AOR Ms. Astha Deep, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR Ms. Megha Karnwal, Adv.
Mr. Arjun Bhatia, Adv.
Mr. Lalit Rajput, Adv.
Ms. Akshata Joshi, Adv.
Mr. Surya Prakash, Adv.
Mr. S. Manoj Selvaraj, Adv.
Mr. K. Bharath, Adv.
Mr. P. Ravi Shankar Rao, Adv.
Ms. Aswathi M.k., AOR Mohd. Javed Malik, Adv.
Mr. Gopal Sankar Narayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. G. Umapathy, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR Mr. Sandeep Rana, Adv.
Mr. Suvin Kumaran, Adv.
6 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The miscellaneous application stands disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (VIRENDER SINGH)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER
[Signed order is placed on the file]
7