Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Judgment 226 cra92.19 & 22.21 execute conveyance in favour of Praharsh Corporation Private Limited as set out, Praharsh Corporation Private Limited shall deposit balance amount of consideration of Rs.5.00 lacs in court and shall obtain the sale deed and possession of the property through court shown in Schedule- A by executing compromise decree. As per the terms and conditions of the said compromise, Riddhi Investment and Properties Private Limited agreed, undertook, and declared to the court that its title to the suit property is clear, marketable, and there is no mortgage, charge, lien or any encumbrances or any third party right in suit property and also agreed that it would not create any encumbrances in respect of the suit property. On 18.4.2002, accordingly, 2 nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur passed compromise decree in Special Civil Suit No.242/1998.

Judgment 226 cra92.19 & 22.21 Properties Private Limited paid amount Rs.57,50,000/-. In view of the said compromise dated 18.4.2002, agreement dated 27.7.1996 executed in favour of Praharsh Corporation Private Limited regarding suit property was decided to be held as valid subsisting and binding on Riddhi Investment and Properties Private Limited. Accordingly, compromise decree was passed on 18.4.2002. Praharsh Corporation Private Limited filed Special Darkhast No.221/2005 to execute the compromise decree dated 18.4.2002. During the pendency of execution proceeding, the Income Tax Department executed sale deed in favour of Riddhi Investment and Properties Private Limited on 20.10.2005. Contrary to the terms of settlement and the compromise decree, Riddhi Investment and Properties Private Limited executed sale deed in favour of MVEPL. In the said compromise decree, it was agreed that Praharsh Corporation Private Limited has already paid Rs.65.00 lacs out of Rs.70.00 lacs and Rs.5.00 lacs remained to be paid which is to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed and on the .....42/-

Judgment 226 cra92.19 & 22.21

(h) for such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.

27. As per submissions of Praharsh Corporation Private Limited, IARCPL filed its reply to the reliefs claimed in the execution application stating that the reliefs claimed by the decree holder if granted, it would be intervention in the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The property in question has been mortgaged with it under an assignment from the Axis Bank Limited. The decree holder was not at all interested to get the alleged compromise decree executed from the court in spite of the fact that they were aware that the judgment debtor has sold and transferred the said property to MVEPL. Thus, in the reply, IARCPL nowhere stated that the agreement in favour of Praharsh Corporation Private Limited is cancelled in view of MoU dated 4.12.2004 and thereby waived its right. The application filed by IARCPL for impleading it as a party in execution vide Exhibit- 19 was rejected on 30.12.2013. Prior to that, the order passed by the executing court in favour of decree holder in .....47/-

Judgment 226 cra92.19 & 22.21 is satisfied by adjusting the amount paid by Praharsh Corporation Private Limited. The said MoU dated 4.12.2004 was executed subsequent to passing of the compromise decree. Admittedly, Praharsh Corporation Private Limited had filed execution proceeding bearing Special Darkhast No.221/2005 to execute the compromise decree on 5.8.2005. Thus, after passing of the compromise decree and before filing execution proceeding, the alleged MoU dated 4.12.2004 was executed. Subsequent to filing of execution proceeding on 5.8.2005, the Income Tax Department executed sale deed in favour of judgment debtor on 20.10.2005. On the same day, contrary to the terms of the compromise decree, the sale deed was executed by judgment debtor in favour of MVEPL. He raised the question whether the cognizance of such MoU can be taken and referred Section 47 and Order XXI Rule 2 of the Code and submitted that adjustment against the decree, which is not certified, cannot be taken into consideration.