Karnataka High Court
Shri Mohammed Nissar S/O Mohammed ... vs Gold Coins Hotels And Resorts Limited on 13 April, 2010
Bench: N.Kumar, K.Govindarajulu
INTTEEflGHCOURTOFKARNATAKAATBANGALORE
DATED1}flSTHE13fl{DAYK]?APRH.%HO
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE N. KUMAR _ » ' 14"
AND
THE HON 'BLE MR.JUS TICE K. ¢',"}()HVI/I1\'I)ARA,I'LTiL:l}'. _ - F'
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL z§0.211b/2006 "
C/W RFA N0S.._2027/2051649;2028/2006(RESI :3
RFA N0.211b72QQ__¢,'__,,
Between : i V A
Sri Mohammed Nissar, '
S/o late Moha1n,med;KhaIee1«,, ._ ii
Aged abt3vut"Es2.Y,\'é:?1rs, '*2, "
New Mevtropo},itan}?uhI'ieations- Pvt. Ltd,
No.64, Gold 'ToWe:,No.50,.Reside_ncy Road,
Bangalore _
And r/at Flat NoV.8';2.,, Bank Apartments,
it " o.3;__130re,bank Road,'Ben'son Town,
Bangalore 4: Appeflant.
Sr. Adv. for Sri Sreevatsa A/S.)
V . And?
M ii * s Gold Coins Hotels & Resorts Limited,
_ Iforrneriy known as Cha Che Hotels Limited),
" 3. company registered under the Companies
Act 1 of 1956, having its Regd. Office
At No.50, Gold Tower, Residency Road,
Reptd. By its Chairman
Sri BIT. Dayananda Reddy.
Sri 1... Chaturbhuj,
S/o late Lunidararn,
Aged about 63 years,
R/a No.22, 1" Floor, 2*" Main,
Srinrayan Chambers,
Sudharna Nagar, Bangalore ~» 27.
And also r/a New Metropolitan
Publications Pvt. Ltd.,
No.64, Gold Tower, No.50,
Residency Road, Bangalore?--2_5.
Smt. C. Maya,
W/o Sri L. Chaturbhu;
Aged about 58 years,--.._ _
R/a No.22, 15' Floor, 2"" Mam-,.
Srinrayan Ch.a_rnbers,.-H . V = , V
Sudhama _Na'gar'_;.Ba1igalorefi--27.R"'v'I2 , h
And also r/ia"NeW?§\'Ietropolitan,. it
Publicat'ions l-"'-gt. Ltd; *
N964, 2 2
Residency Road .i_i'B_aiigai~o.re-~-- 25.
(By Sri.J_.M. R'aja_nna.Setty*. Ads}. for C/R1
_ Sifiti Mfl'. Nanaiahy & A/,:~;, Advs. For Sri Chetan P. Tayal &
. A "Sri S--anjeev, Adys. For R1)
IVRRFA N0s.2o27 & 2028/2006
Between :, . '
Srj Mohammed Nissar,
" ,_AS/oslate Mohammad Khaieel,
* . __-Aged about 52 years,
New Metropolitan Publications Pvt. Ltd.,
No.64, Gold Tower, No.50, Residency Road,
Bangalore -- 25.
V/,
.... Respondents.
And r/a Flat No.82, Far Bank Apartments,
No.3, Borebank Road, Benson Town,
Bangalore -- 46.
Srnt. Abida Nahid,
W/o Sri Mohd. Nissar,
Aged about 49 years, V g 9
New Metropolitan Publications Pvt. Ltd; ._ . -- .
No.64, Gold Tower, No.50, Resid:e.nCy,'Road,'ii'._
Bangalore M 25. 5
And r/a Flat No.82, Far Banliivmidartments',
No.3, Borebank Road, Bensoyn..T_own';
Bangalore -- 46. V '_ "..._...A'ppeiIants
y ,, ('c.ornn.lon'i..ri boththe appeals).
(By Sri s. sreevazsagsig. Ac1_v.for 431-; 'Sree-vatsa
And :
.10" .
Gold Coin,s.Hoté§is S; 'Resorts Lirnited,
(fo_rmerly ,known Chafihe Hotels Limited),
a company 1*egist§:~redn__nder~*'tl1e Companies
Act lof1956,'hairing,its=Regd. Office
At No.50, Gold .Towter,"'Resideney Road,
.. «.{Rept~d. By iitsl-Chairman
" Srii,B.T': Dayananlda Reddy.
2 VSri,:L,g Chatnrbhuj,
A KS/o late -Liinidaram,
Aged about 63 years,
R./5310.22, 1" Floor, 2"" Main,
Srimayan Chambers,
5 'T .,Sudhama Nagar, Bangalore -- 27.
5 "And also r/a New Metropolitan
Publications Pvt. Ltd.,
No.64, Gold Tower, No.50,
Residency Road, Bangalore - 25.
vs
3 Smt. C. Maya,
W/o Sri L. Chaturbhuj,
Aged about 58 years,
R/a No.22, 1" Floor, 2" Main,
Srinrayan Chambers,
Sudhama Nagar, Bangalore -27.
And also r/a New Metropolitan
Publications Pvt. Ltd., . '
No.64, Gold Tower, No.50, .. p
Residency Road, Bangalore W 25-._ V Responiclents.
. f"(icot,:rln1oil.in bothitileappeals).
(By Sri J .M. Rajanna Setty,
Sri M.T. Nanaiah & A/Vs,"'Ad.y's. For"Sri ChetanP. Tayal &
Sri 13.1.. Sanjee'v..VgA«dVsi:_For all ,
Regular=Fi5rst A:ppeal'»i§fo.2ll._0i/2006 is filed under Section
96 of the CFC agiailtstpilhgeijlldgrncnt and decree dated 28.7.2006
passed in'O.S'.-No.6664[2004--. __o'1l,tlie file of the X Addl. City Civil
and C/C Xi*£_Advdl."Citly and Sessions Judge, Bangalore,
decreejng the suit_ fC3f.!3j'6CllTl6IlI, etc.
V-i:.._.iRegtllar._First 'Appeal Nos.202'7/2006 and 2028/2006 are
filed» urlder~.Sec_ti~on 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree
'dated 2'8..7'.--2GO6"a~pa:;sed in O.S.Nos.7199/2003 and 7200/2003 on
thegfil-e' of tile"g:XiAAddl. City Civil and C/C XII Addl. City Civil and
Sessiolls Judge; Bangalore, decreeing the suit for ejectment, etc.
'1;livI:.se Regular First Appeals coming on for Orders this day,
ii..:>_i""MAR. 5., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
In all these three appeals, the respondents are the same whereas the appellants are different. As a common compromise iiit/4 petition is filed in all these three cases, they are taken up together for consideration by this Court. .0
2. O.S.No.6664/2004 is filed by Gold Resorts Limited against Sri Mohammed_Niss_ar, .4 and Smt.C.l\/Iaya for the relief of eje:;c':tprI1eit1:td~.inuiespectdiol:""th§£".1,f property, which is the subject mattcr_of..the . V ' vi 0 C).S.No.7l99/2003 arid O.SipN.o:71l..00%2003ihiareiiiledi by the very same Gold Coins E;irai_ted against Sri Mohammed Nissar.,_:Sr..i__ L.chéturrgi1;-aj_i' Stilt: Abisamahid, and Srnt. C.l\/layaZfor"ej'ectment'iiih respect ofulthevivproperties, which are the subject ma--tter's of the ' ~ .. ». . 4'
3. The»I.jriial_ Court'.é1fter_:contest, has decreed all the suits by '_ its jlkdigmeht and i'dAe'cree___dated 28.7.2006. Aggrieved by the same, defei1darrt,_vi\loi'l._ii1 C_).S.No.6664/2004 and defendant Nosxl and 3 in and 7200/2003 respectively have preferred _ 3 0 . these three appeals. I it
4. RFA No.21 10/2006 is against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.6664/2004 and RF/\ Nos.2027/2006 and 2028/2006 are the two appeals against the common judgment and decree rendered'«i1n'~».r O.S.Nos.'/199/2003 and 7200/2003.
5. All the parties and their respectiVei'*CotinseI appeals are present before the Cio1_:a:rt~;..r_A chorrrnron if compromise petition under Order 23 Ru1e.3 of the Codeof Cilvi'1"Pr0c.eclure is filed which is duly signed all thef'parti.es/:anVd"'their respective Counsel. The partiesi,:'who are present' before the Court, admit the execution~'of"tl1egicompfbinise.spetitionbwe have gone through the terms of the comprornise pe.titi.orn,_. It is lawful. The Compromise petition reads asrznder;
'V f_ ?'(:;:'@1/1'sl'l'*I?fl:02r§/IISE PETITION UNDER ORDER 23 ._ ' .,__RU'LE_»3 THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEQURE' l.f'I'lz'1é"apf3eIIant and respondent state as follows:
A. 1. That all matters in controversy between the appellant and the respondents and its Directors and between the Directors of the respondent and the appellant and members of h.is family have with the av possession of the same to the respondent company, concurrently with the transfer contemplated in para 2 above.
4(a). The respondent further represents that they are._, the owner of Apartments in Saleh Arcadia, Richm"o'nd..'_~..:
Town, Bangalore and the respondent company__and.tl1e."~ in Directors hereby undertake to trar:.sfer'ab.sol'nte1;y clear ownership free of all encumbrancebyiregivstering Sale' Deeds at appellant cost in ;-'espect of'~flat No.;Zl]"li..,,?tn.d, 205 given on rent each measuring'17_O2 isituated at Saleh Arcadia. '"Apartrrrerits",{lpfiiichrraond iTo'\'2Vn, Bangalore fully furnished.'as"per"and deliver po,ssess_i,o'I'1-_ ' attor_nrae'nt......v"of tenants and siiaiultaneousi};~..tlie appel'la_nt will return all pronotes in totality signed_hyii'./lr;'£,7Ih'etan P. Tayal & Mrs.Kusum Tayal a"nd_hi.s_'fami_ly""members and his Companies
1.
._':"3incl_p:ding the"cheo. es in possession of the appellant and respondent Nos.3 and 4 and their associaptesfall*i'ances in totality.
('9) 'The terms, conditions and obligations contained in it 2, 3 and 4 shall be performed by the parties "(appellants and respondents) simultaneously within a week from the date of recording of this compromise by High Court. ' 'A and __ Maya C, _ C.c'tNpie2.4s9--*z/2003 on the file of the XI ACMM, ' .__Ma_y.o Haiti and C.C.No.2381/2004 on the file of the I
5. In the event of either party failing to fulfil their obligations in terms of the agreement as contained in paras 2, 3 and 4 above, this compromise can be enforced against the defaulting party in respect of 3 those obligations without need of further declaration of right by any Court of law, and it shall be executablle decree.
6. The appellants have no objection togthe:'respondents" ti taking possession of the prernises iinmedriatelyvonthe III Floor which are the subjec'ts«r,rf1atter oftheser appeals and sealed on the attachmentxof Hon'b1e C'ovu.rt has delivered possessioh . to. ivresplondent of other areas. H" V l l V V'
7. ATh_e" yrespronderrt "all its Directors hereby e_xpressly~ nndertake=_tha'L" prosecution initiated by them v_':"agai_irstVvM'the appeJ.1ant, his wife; and Mr.Chaturbhuj "L which is pending in Bangalore will be settled uncoziditionally, ii 'i withdrawing all allegations made against the appeiiant, ll his wife and others. The respondents Chetan P. Tayal and Kusum Tayal and its Directors will file application for compound such of the offences which are compoundable by filing appropriate application in the la// 10 said cases as advised by the appeliant by and in some of the offences alleged are not compoundable, the appellant and respondents will file joint petition seek quashing of the proceedings in the High Court "
however this High Court is requested to quash.__'these.:
cases pursuant to this compromiseiiini the ex.=ercise"ofits"
power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
s. The appellant undertal(e_ti'1at he wit: witlidraw:'al.l... the cases immediately within 4a=wieel< filed' against the respondent and theiri_'l)i_rec.tors_includin'g.cases filed in Courts detailed below: C it C 0s No. i53::«mhapehmgiiiiMayahail Court, cc isloii-3D9b:0!2GQ:6"chet}u"c bounce case w:A_.Notzzéizoosijpehiding in Horfble High Court £9". The iappellaiit Mr.Mohammed Nisar withdraws all iiiiithevallegationsVriiade against the respondent and their and request this Hon'ble Court to drop the V".-.,'corite.rr2pt'§;;.proceedings in C.C.C.No.l/2007 as the differerfizes between the parties is amicable settled. The appellant today has no objection to the respondent and libfiits Directors seeking the indulgence of the Hon'ble N High Court to drop proceedings initiated for contempt against them in C.C.C.No.l/2007 in View of parties settled the matters amicably or in the alternative both M/or 11 the parties to file joint application/petition to seek drop of the proceedings however this High Court is requested to quash the contempt proceedings pursuant.-=__ to this compromise in the exercise of its power. 10. The appellant/respondent Nos.2 and 3 respondent company including their alliances and associates and any other person C'lai1'.tf_fi11g ' through them have no further clairnsagainst eachother V' and all the claims are 'settied in"- fun and 5firra1... satisfaction of all.
11. The respondent<--.xl"IoA.2l._ Chattirbhuj L. and respondent No.3 Smt, hav'e~.transferred their entire_ sharehc-«l_d'i12igs'at" part in the company Cha Che Hotels)' Hotels and Resorts Ltd., now vknownllas l\/i.'s_l€\enown*~'I~lote1s and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., to K_usurn"Taiyal.and received the full consideration A i = .. 2 frorn_E,.ustt,rn Tayal and both the parties have no further yclai.:r1:spiVag'ainist each other directly or indirectly. 12-.l:'I.'n"i/iiew, the subject matter in the appeals is being cornpromised between the first respondent and the ..,.,,l»fliappellant, the interest of the second and third respondents would not survive at all and the second and third respondents have no further claims or interest 12 against the first respondent and their Directors and the appellant or Vice Versa.
WHEREOF the appellant and respondents pray;"'tiiatj~...l._:
this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to re.c_ord..V: thisv compromise and decree of the above' appeals andfpa.ss V V A such other order as may be necessary anti 'expedient to ' give full effect to the co1n»pr0__misel"iAr.1_ the int.eri'est.Vof justice and equity."
6. Though thesuits are for:'e'iecfrnenlt'of 'defendants from the P1"€miS€S ground lathat arlewlltenants, from the compromise petition," it_is..c'le.s_ir that the tenants appear to have some interest in the propertie's-,__i*vhi'ch are the subject matters of the suits. By this eornprornise, the appellants intend to transfer a V. propertiesmto the defendants as absolute owners in are giving up their claim in respect of the _ remaj'ning_ap'ortilons. In fact, all the properties are not the subject .""'nil\'1Citl;':§lfS ofthe suits, but to have an amicable settlement, they have ii a. heen"b1"ou ht in as the subect matter of the com romise etition. 1 ' g J 19 p \x// 13
7. In that view of the matter, these appeals are allowed in terms of the compromise petition. Accordingly, the trial Court decree starids modified.
8. In these cases, an interim ord_er..c.a_me to sealing and attaching the third floor of :3.
para 6 of the compromise petition,'ithieappellaltts liay§..yno":o'bjrcction i for the respondents taking'. 'of__ the 'said premises immediately and have reqiiesited interim order passed for sea1in_g_a;nd_ llotgrof the property. Accordirilgly} 'l'in'terxi"m ord"er'ViVstands vacated and the respondents are perrriittedy to«t_ake possession of the said premises.
9. It is:__submitted"ithatV the Ashok Nagar Police have sealed _. V. the p,re§rriises. The"1'espondents shall hand over a copy of this order to jthe --Na"ga_r Police and on such intimation given to them, Aliksholvc'a'N--agar"£Police shall open the lock; and hand over
--V possess.ior'§ ofhthe premises to the respondents. \ 14
10. As the matter is being compromised, the appellantsshall be entitled to refund of the half of the court fee paid along ~, memorandum of appeal. The cheque drawn in the H appeliants shail be handed over to their' 'Counsel their request.
5' pp -