Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 626 (DEL)

GLOBE MOTORS LTD. v. GLOBE DIESELS AND PVT. LTD.

2004-08-13

A.K.SIKRI

body2004
A. K. SIKRI, J. ( 1 ) CA No. 588/2000 is filed by one sh. O. D. Gutti. Sh. Gutti (hereinafter referred to as the applicant ) had entered into an agreement with M/s Globe Diesels Aid pvt. Ltd. (in liquidation) (hereinafter called as the company ) whereby he agreed to purchase certain lands of the company. After the agreement to sell was executed the company went into liquidation. The land in question, subject matter of the the agreement to sell, was also acquired by the state of Haryana. The State of Haryana awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,87,761. 50 paise which included Rs. 21,332. 50 paise payable to one Sh. Madan Gopal whose land was also acquired simultaneously but was not subject matter of agreement to sell between the applicant and the company. Dispute arose as to who is entitled the compensation, i. e. whether the compensation is payable to the applicant who had purchased the land or whether it should go to the Official Liquidator after the winding up of the respondent company. In view of this dispute, this court passed an order dated 8th November, 1977 directing deposit of the compensation amount with the Punjab National Bank (PNB) with further direction that it would be kept in a fixed deposit by the Official Liquidator. It was also observed that the principal amount along with interest accrued thereon would be payable upon final determination of the matter to the party who succeeds in the High Court. ( 2 ) THE applicant sought reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as according to him, the amount of compensation awarded by the Land acquisition Collector (LAC) was not sufficient. This compensation, in the said reference, was enhanced by Rs. 19,29,435. 19 paise which the State of Haryana was to pay and it was directed that the amount be deposited in the state Bank of India, Gurgaon in a fixed deposit. It follows therefore that initial amount of rs. 2,87,761/- was kept with PNB in a fixed deposit and enhanced compensation of rs. 19,29,435. 19/- was kept in fixed deposit with State Bank of India (SBI ). It follows therefore that initial amount of rs. 2,87,761/- was kept with PNB in a fixed deposit and enhanced compensation of rs. 19,29,435. 19/- was kept in fixed deposit with State Bank of India (SBI ). ( 3 ) WHILE the question was still pending as to who is the rightful claimant of this compensation, the applicant as well as the official Liquidator entered into a compromise and the application was filed in this court on 3rd February, 2000 stating the terms of the compromise. It was decided that after taking out the share of Mr. Madan Goptal, the balance amount under the fixed deposits is to be shared between the applicant and the Official liquidator in the ratio of 55:45 respectively. Since the money was lying in the aforesaid two fixed deposits for a pretty long period, substantial interest had accrued thereon. After finding out as to what was the amount with the two banks, the said amount was disclosed in the compromise petition as rs. 1,22,99,884/- with SBI and Rs. 9,34,210/- with PNB. It was agreed that amount lying in the SBI should be distributed in the ratio of 55:45 respectively whereas from the amount lying with PNB, the share of Sh. Madan Goptal was to be taken out first and the balance was to be distributed in the ratio of 55:45. On this application, this court passed the order dated 3rd February, 2000 directing as under: " Enhanced compensation for the entire land was worked out to Rs. 19,29,435/ -. The same was deposited in State bank of India, Gurgaon, on 20th March, 1979 under orders of Punjab and Haryana high Court. As on 31st March, 2000, an amount of Rs. 1,22,99,884/- would be available for apportionment. The amount lying in the State Bank of India, gurgaon and Punjab National Bank are to be apportioned between the parties including Smt. Shanta Kumar. A sum of rs. 9,34,210/- was lying in the Punjab national Bank as on September, 1999. It is agreed between the parties that a sum of Rs. 8,28,000/- shall be paid from the deposit in Punjab National Bank to smt. Shanta Kumari as full and final settlement of her daim. The enhanced amount of compensation of rs. 1,22,99,884/- shall be apportioned in the ratio of 45% to the O. L. and 55% to Mr. O. D. Gutti. 8,28,000/- shall be paid from the deposit in Punjab National Bank to smt. Shanta Kumari as full and final settlement of her daim. The enhanced amount of compensation of rs. 1,22,99,884/- shall be apportioned in the ratio of 45% to the O. L. and 55% to Mr. O. D. Gutti. The balance amount in Punjab National Bank shall also be shared in the aforesaid ratio between Mr. Gutti and the O. L. The taxation, if any, shall be borne by the parties in the ratio in which they have received the aforesaid amount. The o. L. shall make appropriate application in the light of this order for release of amount from the State Ban k of India and Punjab National Bank in the aforesaid manner and the banks shall disburse the amount as aforesaid. The application shall be moved by the O. L. ,within two weeks from the date of this order. The banks shall disburse the amount in the aforesaid manner within a week thereafter. " ( 4 ) IT is, thus, clear that amount of rs. 8,28,000/- was directed to be paid to smt. Shanta Kumari, the widow of Mr. Madan goptal and in so far as the rights of applicant and the Official Liquidator are concerned, the agreement was that the amount is to be apportioned in the ratio of 55:45. ( 5 ) IT was also directed that the Official liquidator would make appropriate application for release of the amount from SBI and PNB. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, after making the payment to the applicant in the aforesaid manner, the applicant came to know that the amount lying in the SBI was Rs. 19,64,246/- more than the figures indicated in the compromise petition. The Official Liquidator worked out the share of the applicant and paid him his share of compensation i. e. 55% of the entire amount lying with the SBI, including rs. 19,64,246/- not indicated in the compromise petition. Likewise, after paying rs. 8,28,000/- to Smt. Shanta Kumari from the amount lying in PNB, 55% share of the applicant from the balance sum of rs. 1,06,210/- (Rs. 9,34,210 - Rs. 8,28,000/-) was paid to the applicant. 19,64,246/- not indicated in the compromise petition. Likewise, after paying rs. 8,28,000/- to Smt. Shanta Kumari from the amount lying in PNB, 55% share of the applicant from the balance sum of rs. 1,06,210/- (Rs. 9,34,210 - Rs. 8,28,000/-) was paid to the applicant. ( 7 ) IT may be mentioned at this stage that the figures given in the application vary from the aforesaid figures as in the application it is stated that the amount ought to be deposited with PNB was Rs. 20,64,333/- and on this reckoning applicant s share would come to Rs. 6,21,678/ -. ( 8 ) ONE can deduce the following pertinent facts from the aforesaid factual matrix: (A) Before-filing the compromise petition, the parties found out the balance lying with SBI and PNB and these amounts were reflected in the compromise petition. (b) On the basis of averments made in the compromise petition, these amounts were reflected in the order 3rd february, 2000 as well as in the application which was filed under Order xxiii Rule 3 of the Code of Civil procedure and direction was given to the Official Liquidator to give the share of the applicant accordingly. (c) However, in so far as the SBI is concerned, it was ultimately found that the amount lying with it was rs. 1,42,64,130/- and not rs. 1,22,99,884/ -. However, in this differential also, (i. ,e. Rs. 19,64,246/-) the applicant was given his share. (d) As far as amount lying in PNB is concerned, it was Rs. 9,34,210/- and the applicant has been given his share in that amount after paying his dues of mr. Madan Gopal. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, what the applicant now points out that some withdrawals were made by the official Liquidator from fixed deposits which were unauthorised, unexplained and without justification. Had these withdrawats been not made, the amount lying in PNB could have been much more than Rs. 9,34,210/ -. According to him, it should have been rs. 21,70,587/- and if the share of the applicant at the rate of 55% is calculated thereon, he should have got Rs. Rs. 6,21,678/- (although in the written submission, this amount is calculated as Rs. 6,80,007. 35 paise) more than what has been paid to him now. ( 10 ) THE aforesaid contention of the applicant is disputed by Mr. Luthra, learned counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator. Rs. 6,21,678/- (although in the written submission, this amount is calculated as Rs. 6,80,007. 35 paise) more than what has been paid to him now. ( 10 ) THE aforesaid contention of the applicant is disputed by Mr. Luthra, learned counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator. He submits that the compromise was arrived at between the parties after prolonged and due deliberations. Before filing the application for recording this compromise, the parties even found out the balance lying in two accounts and therefore subsequently mentioned the same. Even when the mistake was detected in so far as credit with SBI is concerned, in all fairness the Official Liquidator agreed to pay the share of the applicant to the extent of 55% in the additional amount found. However, in so far as PNB is concerned, the applicant knew fully well as to what was the amount lying at credit and what is his share which has been paid to him. The submission is that this application amounts to reopening the said settlement which cannot be allowed. ( 11 ) IN my considered view, this plea of the learned counsel for the Official Liquidator has merit. It is an admitted fact that the land in question was acquired in the year 1969. Before the Award could be made, the company had agreed to sell this land to the applicant. Thereafter, the company went into liquidation in these proceedings. Thus dispute arose as to who is the rightful owner of the compensation. Even a reference under sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition act, 1894 was made before the Additional district Judge for determining the ratio of apportionment of the amount of original compensation between the Official Liquidator and the applicant. While these proceedings were pending for unduly long period, the parties entered into the compromise in order to see that there is an end to the long drawn litigation/dispute and agreed to apportion the compensation in the ratio of 55:45. While this was agreed upon the parties even found out the amount lying in the two accounts and therefore the amount was reflected in the application. It was his sheer luck that it turned out to be that the amount lying with sbi was much more than what was reflected in the application and therefore on the additional amount found to be lying he got his share of 55%. It was his sheer luck that it turned out to be that the amount lying with sbi was much more than what was reflected in the application and therefore on the additional amount found to be lying he got his share of 55%. In so far as the amount lying with PNB is concerned, the applicant clearly understood as to how much would be paid to him. He has got that share. Today he wants to claim further share not on the basis that amount lying with PNB was found to be more but on the plea that certain withdrawals were made by the Official liquidator which were allegedly unauthroised and had these withdrawals been not made the interest accrued could have been much more which would have resulted in increase in the share of the applicant. Thus, the applicant is challenging action of the Official liquidator alleging certain withdrawals as unauthorised. In the process, he wants this court to go into the question as to whether the Official Liquidator had withdrawn any amounts ? If so, for what purpose? And whether the said withdrawals were justified? for this, he wants this court to determine as to on what account those withdrawals were made from time to time? Such an exercise, to my mind, would not be permissible at this stage and after the parties entered into a compromise voluntarily and with open eyes. It would neither be feasible nor justifiable for this court to go into this exercise at this distance of time. Even if it is granted that the Official Liquidator had withdrawn certain amounts and he was not entitled to make these withdrawals, the important bar which prohibits the applicant for making such a claim is the settlement between the parties. It is not that the Court had determined the apportionment of the compensation between the two parties. That was the outcome of the settlement between the parties and in the process of entering into the settlement, reflection of figures of the amount lying in the two accounts would indicate that the applicant knew fully well as to how much the amount he is going to get when he is agreeing that his share should be 55% in the compensation which was paid. ( 12 ) THEREFORE, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I am afraid that no relief can be granted to the applicant. ( 12 ) THEREFORE, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I am afraid that no relief can be granted to the applicant. This application is accordingly dismissed. CA No. 859 of 2000 ( 13 ) IN view of what is discussed above, prayer made in this application has become infructuous and it is dismissed.