Court disposed of suit compromised upon confirmation that Charity Commissioner's sanction was obtained and full consideration paid to plaintiffs, dismissing unnecessary continuation.
Suit disposed of as compromised; court fees refunded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
agk
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT NO.2023 OF 2010
Jehangir Wadia & others ..Plaintiffs.
Versus
Sears Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Others
..Defendants.
Mr. Yahya Goghari with Mr. Yohaan Rubens i/by Vigil Juris, for the Plaintiffs.
Mr. S.D. Mogre, for Defendant Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. S.A. Bhagwat, for Defendant No.4.
CORAM : G.S. Patel, J. Monday, 20th January 2014.
P.C. :
1.In this matter, consent terms were entered into on 10th January 2013
between the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2. These consent terms
disposed of Notice of Motion No.2501 of 2010 and Notice of Motion No.2966
of 2011.
2. The consent terms contemplated sanction of the Charity Commissioner being applied for and obtained. Clause 9 of the consent terms reads thus : “9. Upon the Consent Terms being operative (i.e. upon sanction being granted by the Charity Commissioner) the suit shall stand disposed of accordingly. In the event of the Intending Purchaser's offer being rejected
1 of 3
by the Charity Commissioner -
3.It is common ground today that the Charity Commissioner's sanction
has been obtained by an order dated 2nd May 2013. That order stipulates
certain additional terms and conditions. There is no dispute that the 1st and
2nd defendants have paid the entire agreed consideration to the plaintiffs. On
any fair reading of the consent terms, therefore, the suit would automatically
stands disposed of in view of the clear provisions of clause 9 of these consent
terms.
4.However, the learned Advocate for the plaintiffs today states that there
is as yet no full compliance with some of the additional terms and conditions
stipulated by the Charity Commissioner. In particular, he points out that clause
(d) of the operative part of the order require that a sale deed / conveyance
deed be executed within six months from the date of that order, i.e., before 2nd
November 2013. It appears that that has not yet been done.
5.This, however, cannot be a reason for the plaintiffs to insist on
continuing with the suit. The plaintiffs have received the entire consideration
in respect of the immovable property. It is for the 1st and 2nd defendants to
apply for an extension of time before the Charity commissioner for completing
the sale deed / conveyance deed. The plaintiffs cannot conceivably be
2 of 3
prejudiced if the 1st and 2nd defendants have not sought or not obtained such
an extension.
6.It is also not out of place to mention that in an annexure to the consent
terms, which provided for terms and conditions of sale, an amount of as much
as Rs.36,00,000/- was additionally agreed to be paid by the 1st and 2nd
defendants to the plaintiffs as their litigation costs. This, too, has been paid.
7.In my view, nothing survives in the suit. No purpose will be achieved in
keeping this suit pending. A copy of the order of the Charity Commissioner
passed on 2nd May 2013 is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification.
8. In view of the above, the suit is disposed of as compromised. Refund of Court fees as per Rules.
3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit should be concluded given that the Charity Commissioner's sanction has been obtained and full consideration received.
Whether non-compliance with the Charity Commissioner's order regarding the sale deed execution date keeps the suit pending.
G.S. Patel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court