Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. Shri Choudhary contended that, since the petition is not maintainable for various reasons indicated as a part of his arguments, we cannot appoint a new valuer and the petition should be dismissed. It is to be noted that in Clause 5 of the consent order, the undertaking of the respondents that they would not raise any objection counter to the intent of the settlement, has been recorded. Further, in their reply to the petition also the respondents had raised similar objections and notwithstanding the same, they were parties to the consent order. Therefore, now, they are completely estopped from raising any objection either on the maintainability or on the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioners cited a few cases on the binding nature of the consent terms, as rightly pointed out by Shri Choudhary, these cases may not be of much assistance in the present case as the facts are different in this case as in this case the maintainability of the petition has been raised which was not the position in those cases. Recently the Division Bench of the Madras High Court has held that once a consent order is passed, the same cannot be challenged on any ground including the ground on jurisdiction. Kulki Leather (P.) Ltd v. T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetiar & Co. - Letters Patent Appeal 123 of 2001, dated 28-8-2001. The facts of that case are: In a proceeding under Section 235 of the Act, the parties agreed to settle the disputes amicably by which the shares purportedly allotted to the petitioner would be purchased by the respondents. An order was passed by this Board in terms of the consent given by the parties. As per this order, the respondents were to pay a sum of Rs. 25 lacs to the petitioner within a certain period. When the respondents failed to do so, the petitioner filed an application under Section 634A of the Act seeking to execute the consent order. When this application was heard, one of the main contentions of the respondents was that the CLB had no powers to pass an order of sale and purchase of the shares in a proceeding under Section 235 and as such the said order was without jurisdiction and that since the parties had not signed the consent terms in terms of Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC, the consent order had no validity. All the contentions of the respondents was negatived by the Board and the application of the petitioner was allowed. This order was taken on an appeal to the Madras High Court in which a Single Judge upheld the order of this Board which was also taken on appeal to the Division Bench which also upheld the order of the CLB. We may beneficially refer to certain portions of the judgment. Paragraph 15 of the Judgment reads :