AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jayant Patel, J.—Heard Mr. Ashish Shah for Mr. Harin Raval learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.M. Hawa for Singhi & Co. for the respondent No. 4.
The short facts of the case appear to be that Lavad Suit No. 468 of 2000 was filed by the petitioner bank against respondents for recovery of the amount of Rs. 42,37,768.41 paise, and in the said suit the application Exh. 27 was submitted by the bank for the interim injunction against respondent No. 2 herein against transfer or alienation the property. It appears that the learned Board of Nominees passed the ex-parte order below Exhibit 27 on 30th June 2000, prohibiting respondent No. 2 from transferring or alienating property No. 67-A situated at Worli Mumbai know as ''Piramal Bhavan''. The revision application was preferred by respondent No. 2 before the tribunal and the tribunal vide order dated 7.9.2000 recorded declaration that the applicants-original defendants shall not transfer or alienate the property, and will preserve the property by maintenance of the status-quo. It appears that the tribunal heard the revision, and allowed the revision by quashing and setting aside the order of the Board of Nominees below Exhibit 27. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner bank has approached to this Court by preferring the present petition.
It appears that when this Court (Coram: R.P. Dholakia,J.) considered the matter for admission on 2.12.2000, while admitting the petition, this Court stayed the operation of the order passed by the tribunal, and continued the interim order prevailing pending hearing of the revision before the tribunal. As a consequence thereof the status-quo came to be ordered by this Court, which was so recorded and ordered by the tribunal.
Upon hearing learned Counsel appearing for both the sides and more particularly in view of the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, and the documents produced in support thereof it appears that on 29.1.2002 pursis/declaration is submitted on behalf of the bank before the Board of Nominees wherein it has been stated at para 1 and 2 as under:
That the aforesaid Defendant No. 4 Electric Control Gear (India) Ltd. have paid the sum of Rs. 45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lacs only) to the plaintiff by the Demand Draft No. 001497 dated 29th January 2002 drawn upon Standard Chartered Bank in favour of the plaintiff Bank in full and final settlement and total discharge of the plaintiff''s claims against the Defendants No. 2 to 4 namely Dr. Mohanlala Piramal (Deceased) and his legal heirs and Smt. Alka M. Shah and Electric Control Gears (India) Ltd.
That there is no amount due and/or payable by the said defendants No. (2) to (4) to the plaintiff. That all the orders against the said defendants No. (2) to (4) and/or their properties both movable and/or immovable shall stand vacated.
The aforesaid pursis is recorded on 9.2.2002 by the learned Board of Nominees. Further in the proceedings of Company Application No. 347 of 2000 in Company Petition No. 147 of 2000 when this Court (Coram: K.M. Mehta, J.) on 26.02.2002 passed the order, the declaration is recorded at para 6 of the said order by this Court which reads as under:
Mr. Harin P. Raval, learned advocate for the applicant Bank states that during the pendency of the petition respondent No. 5 Electric Control Gear (India) Ltd., one of the guarantors, has paid a sum of Rs. 45,00,000/- (Rupees forty five lakhs) to the applicant Bank by Demand Draft No. 001497 dated 29.1.2002 drawn on Standard Chartered Bank in favour of the applicant Bank in full and final settlement and total discharge of the plaintiff''s claim against defendant Nos. 2 to 4, namely, Dr. Mohanlal Piramal (deceased and his legal heirs and proposed heirs and Smt. Alka M. Shah and Electric Control Gear (India) Ltd., are discharged from the suit claim and deleted as the defendants. In view of the same, the applicant is permitted to delete defendant Nos. 2 to 4. However, the main Suit against the Company will be allowed to continue.
Therefore, in above view of the matter, when the amount is paid as full and final settlement, and the declaration has already made by the bank that no amount is due or payable by the defendant Nos. 2 to 4, and not only the orders against the defendant No. 2 to 4 including their property of movable and/or immovable are vacated, but they are also deleted from the proceedings before the learned Board of Nominees in suit No. 468 of 2000. If the parties to the proceedings are deleted from the suit, on account of the declaration of the bank itself, there would not be any question surviving for any prohibitory order against such parties.
In the present case the bank had initially prayed injunction in the suit against defendant No. 2 and the very defendant No. 2 is deleted as party in the proceedings before the learned Board of Nominees. The aforesaid is coupled with the circumstance that the defendant No. 2 is also declared as expired.
Under above circumstances, as the defendant No. 2 is deleted in the suit, as a consequence thereof the interim injunction which was granted by the learned Board of Nominees is also vacated, the present petition would be rendered as infructuous. Further, the basis of the petition does not survive in view of the aforesaid development and deletion of respondent No. 2. Hence, no useful purpose would be served in examining the question raised in the petition as to whether the tribunal was justified in allowing the revision or not.
Hence, the present petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. Rule discharged. Interim relief is vacated. No order as to costs.