2000 sq.
All other terms of the companysent decree will remain.
On 13.12.1971 a private limited companypany was incorporated of which the respondent Nos.1 and 2 alone were the directors.
However, Respondents 1 and 2 agree number to execute the decree before the 1st of January, 1980, on the undertaking given by Mr. Nariman on behalf of the petitioners and respondent No.3 that the petitioners and respondent No.3 shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to respondents 1 and 2 on or before the said date.
of plot No.581 pt polt No.582 pt of TPS IV, Mahim Division, Bombay belongs to Prakash Chimanlal Parikh and Pankaj Chimanlal Parikh?
In companypliance of the aforesaid order of this, Court the High Court framed the following two issues 1 whether the property admeasuring approx.
A hereto and the said affidavits of Kewal Kishan Agarwal and Bankey Kishan Agarwal dated 15th December, 1977 and c for such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may, require for which act of kindness as the petitioners have in duty bound shall ever pray.
In pursuance to the above order, undertakings were filed on 15.1 2.1977.
The above application came up for companysideration on 11.12.1978 and was disposed of by the following order UPON hearing companynsel, the Court passed the following order The other side has numberobjection.
The petitioners and respondent 3 further undertake that they will number raise any companytention hereafter that they were or are in possession of the premises either as licensee or tenants of respondents 1 and 2 under the unamended or the amended Rent Act.
Ram Jethmalani, S.K. Dholakia, P. Chidambaram, Ms. Bina, H. Parekh, A.L. Pandya, Ms Seita Vaidyalingam, Ms. Rina Agarwal, Anant Palli, Atul Sharma and E.C. Agarwal for the appearing parties.
Order made as prayed for.
A hereto and the undertakings recorded in the said order as well as the undertakings given by Kewal Kishan Agarwal and Bankey Kishan Agarwal in their affidavits dated 15th December, 1977 That the petitioners, respondent No.3, the said Kewal Kishan Agarwal and the said Bankey Kishan Agarwal be relieved on their respective undertaking given by them to this Honble Court and recorded in the said order dated 13th December, 1977 Ex.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL, J. A Plot of land measuring 2000 sq.
A companyy of the agreement granting fresh tenancy was also filed along with the application.
On 31.10.1961 a companysent decree for eviction was passed in the above suit with the companydition that the decree shall number be executed for a period of 12 years i.e. upto 31.10.1973.
Subsequently an application C.M.P. No.18403 of 1978 was submitted on 8.8.1978 to the effect that after the filing of the undertakings the petitioners and respondent No.3 had handed over peaceful and vacant possession of the premises of respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 25th June, 1978.
The petitioners also filed a declaratory suit in January, 1974 in the Small Causes Court at Bombay for being declared as tenants in the above property.
The following prayer was made in the said application That it may be declared and recorded that the petitioners and respondent No.3 have duly companyplied with the order of this Honble Court dated 13th December, 1977 Exh.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.10.1977 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No.742 of 1977.
It was further submitted that on 25th June, 1978 itself a fresh tenancy had been granted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the petitioners.
On 1.9.1973 this private limited companypany also became a partner in the partnership firm of JMMC of which respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the only partners.
The business of JMMC was taken over and companytinued by this partnership firm.
yards situated at Syani Road Bombay is the subject matter of this litigation.
belonged to Prakash Chimanlal Parikh and Pankaj Chimanlal Parikh respondent Nos.1 and 2 and that M s JMMC Pvt.
In pursuance to the order dated 13.12.1977 some undertakings were given by the petitioners as well as respondent No.3 on 15.12.1977 and thereafter the petitioners and respondent No.3 handed over the possession of the property in dispute to respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 25.6.1978 and on the same day a fresh agreement of lease was granted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the petitioners.
A Bench of three Judges of this Court on 13.12.1977 dismissed the Special Leave Petition but respondent Nos.1 and 2 agreed number to execute the decree before 1st January, 1980 on an usual undertaking to be given by the petitioners as well as respondent No.3.
By the said order dated 13.12.1977 the time for execution of the companysent decree was extended upto 1.1.1980.
The respondent Nos.1 and 2 denied any tenancy having been created in favour of the petitioners.
The said Special Leave Petition was also dismissed on 13.12.1977 and the time was granted to vacate the property in dispute before the 1st January, 1980.
Second part of the case is that after a lapse of nearly 12 years of disposal of the Special Leave Petition the above A. No.1 of 1990 has been filed on 23.1.1990 by one Jugal Kishore Gupta and for companyvenience we shall hereinafter mention this application as having been filed by the applicant companypany.
Ltd. hereinafter referred to as respondent No.3 was in occupation of the said property as a tenant.
Mayadevi widow of Chimanlal D. Parikh and executors named in the will dated 20th October, 1952 acting on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit No.344 of 1958 for eviction against respondent No.3 in the Bombay High Court.
One part of the case is that the above property belonged to Chitnanlal D. Parikh.
In the said suit the interlocutory application restraining the respondent Nos.1 and 2 from executing the decree for eviction was dismissed.
Devidayal Rolling and Refineries Pvt.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Interlocutory Application No.1 of 1990.
By another order dated 11.12.1978 this Honble Court recorded satisfaction of the executable order dated 13.12.1977 by discharging the undertakings given by the petitioners and respondent No.3.
IN Special Leave Petition No.4925 of 1977.
On 21.11.1952 the said Chimanlal Parikh companyverted it into a partnership firm of himself and his Mayadevi.
Chimanlal D. Parikh died on 5.12.1952.
Ltd. the applicant companypany were number the owners.
The above application was filed in view of the fresh agreement of tenancy warranting the obtaining of discharge of the undertaking filed before this Court.
Thereafter the matter will be listed for further orders.
The Small Causes Court rejected the grant of any injunction in favour of the petitioners and a revision filed against the said order was also dismissed by the High Court.
By an agreement of sale dated 31.7.1979 the applicant companypany purchased 100 shares of the private limited companypany of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
The said applications were allowed and respondent Nos.1 and 2 were substituted as decree holders by an order of the High Court dated 10.12.1973.
He executed a will on 20.10.1952 in favour of his minor sons Prakash Chimanlal Parikh and Pankaj Chimanlal Parikh hereinafter referred to as respondent Nos.1 and 2 .
Chimanlal D. Parikh died on 5.12.1952.
The applicant companypany has filed objections on 29.10.1991 to the findings recorded by the High Court and the petitioners have filed a companynter on 23.11.1991 to the objections filed by the applicant companypany.
Arrears of companypensation according to the companysent decree shall be paid within four weeks from today and further companypensation shall be paid before the 10th of every month at the rate of Rs.4000 per month.
On 22.10.1963 a deed of partnership was made between Mayadevi and her sons, respondents Nos.1 and 2.
The respondent Nos.1 and 2 in order to execute the said decree submitted an application under Order 21 rule 16 and Order 21 rule 22 P.C. in the Bombay High Court.
This companycludes one part of the case.
M s Devidayal Rolling Mills hereinafter referred to as the petitioners appeared in the execution proceedings and companytended that they had purchased the business along with interest in the disputed property from Devidayal Rolling and Refineries Private Limited, the respondent No.3.
The order dated 13.12.1977 having an important bearing in the case is reproduced as under UPON hearing companynsel, the Court passed the following, ORDER Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
The petitioners also filed an interlocutory application for restraining the respondent Nos.1 and 2 from executing the decree for eviction.
The revision filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by the High Court and against that order the petitioners had companye before this Court by filing the above Special Leave Petition No.4925 of 1977.
On 7.12.1966 Mayadevi retired from the above partnership firm and respondent Nos.1 and 2 alone companytinued as partners.
The petitioner and respondent No.3 shall file through their Managing Director an affidavit in terms of this order, within two weeks.
The petitioners then filed a Special Leave Petition No.4925 of 1977 in this Court, after the disposal of which, the present interim application No.1 has been filed.
