1996 JTR(SC) 1373
1997 1 AWC 107 ; 1996 4 ICC 587 ; 1996 8 JT 290 ; 1997 1 RCR(Civ) 604 ; 1996 7 Scale 20 ; 1996 10 SCC 255 ; 1996 Supp5 SCR 439 ; 1996 7 Supreme 232
1996(7) Supreme 232
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Suvaran Rajaram Bandekar & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Narayan R. Bandekar & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 12011-12 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 3367-68 of 1996)
Decided on 2-9-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : C. Sitaramiah, Sr. Advocate and K.R. Nambiar, Advocate.
For the Respondents : R.F. Nariman, Sr. Advocate and P. Venugopal, K.J. John, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
In a consent decree on compromise, Court would be loathe to interfere with terms thereof by way of modification unless both parties gave consent thereto.
Act Referred :CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : O.23 R.3
(A) The Civil Procedure Code, Order 23, Rule 3, governs the adjudication of appeals by special leave, particularly where questions of judicial power and discretion arise, such as the power of a court to reschedule payments under a consent decree. In the context of a consent decree arising from a compromise, the court exercises restraint and refrains from interference unless special circumstances are demonstrated, and the non-compliance must be assessed against the backdrop of substantial performance and the willingness of the parties to adhere to the courts directions. The provisions contemplate that once a direction of a higher court has been substantially complied with, an appellate court will not lightly disturb the arrangement, especially where one party has already fulfilled its obligations and the default relates to future payments contingent on compliance.
(B) The key legal principles include the doctrine of restraint in modifying consent decrees, the requirement of substantial compliance with court directions, the limited scope of interference on appeals by special leave, and the evidentiary value of affidavits in establishing compliance.
Facts of the case:
The respondents had obtained a consent decree which was the subject of appeals by special leave. They had filed an affidavit stating that they had complied with all court directions except for three future instalments due in September, October, and December of a particular year. A dispute was also raised regarding the non-handing over of RC books of seven vehicles, with reasons such as the vehicle being sold as scrap and the inability to use the vehicles due to the conduct of the respondents.
Findings of Court:
The court noted that substantial amounts had already been paid and that the non-compliance pertained only to future instalments. It observed that the respondents had otherwise complied with the directions and that the circumstances did not warrant interference. Regarding the RC books, the court found that explanations had been provided for five vehicles, compliance had been achieved for the sixth, and the seventh vehicle could not be produced as it had been sold as scrap.
Issues:
The primary issue was whether the court should interfere with the terms of the consent decree given partial non-compliance regarding future payments and the non-handing over of RC books. A related issue was whether the circumstances surrounding the RC books constituted a valid ground for interference.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that where a party has substantially complied with the directions of a consent decree and the non-compliance relates only to future payments, the court will not interfere on special leave appeals unless special circumstances are made out. The court also found that the explanations for the RC books were sufficient to negate any basis for interference.
Result:
The appeals were dismissed with no costs awarded.
(A) The Civil Procedure Code, Order 23, Rule 3, governs the adjudication of appeals by special leave, particularly where questions of judicial power and discretion arise, such as the power of a court to reschedule payments under a consent decree. In the context of a consent decree arising from a compromise, the court exercises restraint and refrains from interference unless special circumstances are demonstrated, and the non-compliance must be assessed against the backdrop of substantial performance and the willingness of the parties to adhere to the courts directions. The provisions contemplate that once a direction of a higher court has been substantially complied with, an appellate court will not lightly disturb the arrangement, especially where one party has already fulfilled its obligations and the default relates to future payments contingent on compliance.
(B) The key legal principles include the doctrine of restraint in modifying consent decrees, the requirement of substantial compliance with court directions, the limited scope of interference on appeals by special leave, and the evidentiary value of affidavits in establishing compliance.
Facts of the case:
The respondents had obtained a consent decree which was the subject of appeals by special leave. They had filed an affidavit stating that they had complied with all court directions except for three future instalments due in September, October, and December of a particular year. A dispute was also raised regarding the non-handing over of RC books of seven vehicles, with reasons such as the vehicle being sold as scrap and the inability to use the vehicles due to the conduct of the respondents.
Findings of Court:
The court noted that substantial amounts had already been paid and that the non-compliance pertained only to future instalments. It observed that the respondents had otherwise complied with the directions and that the circumstances did not warrant interference. Regarding the RC books, the court found that explanations had been provided for five vehicles, compliance had been achieved for the sixth, and the seventh vehicle could not be produced as it had been sold as scrap.
Issues:
The primary issue was whether the court should interfere with the terms of the consent decree given partial non-compliance regarding future payments and the non-handing over of RC books. A related issue was whether the circumstances surrounding the RC books constituted a valid ground for interference.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that where a party has substantially complied with the directions of a consent decree and the non-compliance relates only to future payments, the court will not interfere on special leave appeals unless special circumstances are made out. The court also found that the explanations for the RC books were sufficient to negate any basis for interference.
Result:
The appeals were dismissed with no costs awarded.
ORDER
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. These appeals by special leave arise from the order dated December 15, 1995 made in LPA Nos. 155-156/95 by the Bombay High Court. We need not traverse all the details of the litigation. Suffice it to state that we have issued notice primarily on the question of the power of the Court to re-schedule the payment of the amounts under the consent decree. In a consent decree on compromise, Court would be loathe to interfere with the terms thereof by way of modification unless both parties give consent thereto. On the last occasion, when the matter had come up for hearing, Shri T.R. Andhyrujina, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, had stated that pursuant to the order passed by the High Court they have complied with the directions. Therefore, by order dated July 22, 1996, we directed the respondents to file an affidavit as regards the dates on which compliance had been made. In pursuance thereof, an affidavit has been filed in which it is stated that all the directions have been complied with and the payments have been made on due dates except the three instalments to be paid in future, viz., first in this month i.e. September 96, second in October 96, and the third and last one, in December 96. In view of the fact that substantial amount has already been paid, we do not think that it is a fit case warranting interference on the special circumstances. Another area of controversy now sought to be raised is the failure to hand over the R.C. books in relation to seven vehicles. It is stated in the affidavit and records have been placed before us, to show the circumstances in which the R.C. books could not be handed over in relation to five vehicles. It is stated that with regard to the sixth vehicle, it has been complied with now. As regards the seventh vehicle, it is stated across the bar and also in the affidavit that the vehicle was sold as a scrap; as a consequence, R.C. book could not be handed over. It is stated by Mr. C. Sitaramiah, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants that vehicle was kept stationed and the vehicle became a junk because of the conduct on the part of the respondent in not allowing the vehicles to be used. That is not the controversy which we can decide here. Under these circumstances, we do not think that these are the cases for interference.
3. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Appeal dismissed.
*******