This court dismissed an appeal against an attachment order. It held that a concession made by the appellant's counsel regarding the sale of 50% tenancy rights was binding and could not be resiled from, leading to the dismissal of the challenge to the attachment.
The appeal against the attachment order was dismissed.
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.
911-app.99.2016.doc
1/7
nsc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO.99 OF 2016 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.796 OF 2010 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.264 OF 2010 IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.4307 OF 2001
Rajendra Jagannath Jhavar ...Appellant Versus Basa Silk Mills Private Limited and Ors. ...Respondents
Mr.Subhash Jha i/b Ms.Mandakini D. Singh, for the Appellant.
Ms.Mamta Sodh a/w R.A.Kesuri i/b Banatwala & Co., for Respondent No.1.
Mr.Bharat Vaishnava a/w Mr.S.R.Yadav i/b Bharat Vaishnawa & Co., for Respondent No.3.
CORAM : V. M. KANADE & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.
DATE : 16th FEBRUARY, 2016
P.C. :
Single Judge dated 4th March, 2015 attaching 50% of the tenanted premises
911-app.99.2016.doc
2/7
of Room No.30.
1 2010 SCC Online Del 538 2 CDJ 1978 MHC 182
3 CDJ 2002 Ker HC 212
4 CDJ 1986 Orissa HC 160
911-app.99.2016.doc
3/7
Single Judge therefore being a concession from law is not binding and the appeal therefore is maintainable.
5 1982(2) SCC 463
911-app.99.2016.doc
4/7
Court and led the arguments for the respondents there and who appeared for Shri Antulay before us intervened and protested that he never made any such concession and invited us to peruse the written submissions made by him in the High Court. We are afraid that we cannot launch into an inquiry as to what transpired in the High Court. It is simply not done. Public Policy bars us. Judicial decorum restrains us. Matters of judicial record are unquestionable. They are not open to doubt. Judges cannot be dragged into the arena. "Judgments cannot be treated as mere counters in the game of litigation". (Per Lord Atkinson in Somasundaram Chetty v. Subramanian Chetty, AIR 1926 PC 136 : 99 IC 742). We are bound to accept the statement of the judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in court. We cannot allow the statement of the judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. If the judges say in their judgment that something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the subject. The principle is well settled that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent, upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the judges, to call the attention of the very judges who have made
911-app.99.2016.doc
5/7
the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error. (Per Lord Buckmaster in Madhu Sudan Chowdhri v. Chandrabati Chowdhrain , AIR 1917 PC 30 : 42 IC 527). That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. Of course a party may resile and an appellate court may permit him in rare and appropriate cases to resile from a concession on the ground that the concession was made on a wrong appreciation of the law and had led to gross injustice; but, he may not call in question the very fact of making the concession as recorded in the judgment”.
911-app.99.2016.doc
6/7
they are relations of the judgment debtors. It was contended that the tenancy rights do not belong to the judgment debtor which is a limited company. Thereafter, a concession was made by Mr.Warunjikar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Director that tenancy rights to the extent of 50% in Room No.30 is sold. The said concession was therefore a concession on the facts of the case and it was not a legal concession.
911-app.99.2016.doc
7/7
submission. The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
V.M. KANADE, J.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a concession made by counsel on facts and recorded by the court is binding on the party and precludes resiling from it.
Whether a Director's personal property can be attached for the dues payable by a limited company.
Whether the omission of the Chamber Summons number in the cause title of the order can be corrected.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
V.K.Uppal vs M/s.Akshay International Private LimitedReferred¶20
2010 SCC Online Del 538 · Who else cites this
Ravindra Finance vs Yaanai Tobacco Co.Referred¶20
CDJ 1978 MHC 182
Kuriakose vs P.K.V.Group Industries and AnotherReferred¶20
CDJ 2002 Ker HC 212
Hrushikesh Panda vs Indramani SwainReferred¶20
CDJ 1986 Orissa HC 160
State of Maharashtra v/s Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and AnotherRelied on¶29
1982(2) SCC 463 · Who else cites this
Somasundaram Chetty v. Subramanian ChettyReferred¶29
AIR 1926 PC 136 · Who else cites this
Madhu Sudan Chowdhri v. Chandrabati ChowdhrainReferred¶29
AIR 1917 PC 30 · Who else cites this
Rajendra Jagannath Jhavar
Basa Silk Mills Private Limited and Ors.
V. M. Kanade
Revati Mohite Dere
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
