Rajaram Bandekar & Ors Vs. Shri Narayan R. Bandekar & Ors  INSC 1058
(2 September 1996)
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
O R D
have heard learned counsel on both sides.
appeals by special leave arise from the order dated December 15, 1995 made in LPA Nos. 155156/95 by the Bombay High Court. We
need not traverse all the details of the litigation. Suffice it to state that
we have issued notice primarily on the question of the power of the court to
re-schedule the payment of the amounts under the consent decree. In a consent
decree on compromise, court would be loathe to interfere with the terms thereof
by way of modification unless both parties give consent thereto. On the last
occasion, when the matter had come up for hearing, Shri T.R. Andhyrujina,
learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, had stated that pursuant
to the order passed by the High Court they have complied with the directions.
Therefore, by order dated July 22, 1996,
we directed the respondents to file an affidavit as regards the dates on which
compliance had bean made. In pursuance thereof, an affidavit has been filed in
which it is stated that all the directions have been complied with and the
payments have been made on due dates except the three instalments to be paid in
future viz.. first in this month i.e. September 96, second in October 96, and
the third and last one, in December 96. In view of the fact that substantial
amount has already been paid, we do not think that it is a fit case warranting
interference on the special circumstances. Another area of controversy now
sought to be raised is the failure to hand over the R.C. books in relation to
seven vehicles. It is stated in the affidavit and records have been placed
before us, to show the circumstances in which the R.C. books could not be
handed over in relation to five vehicles. It is stated that with regard to the
sixth vehicle, it has been complied with now.
regards the seventh vehicle, it is stated across the bar and also in the
affidavit that the vehicle was sold as a scrap; as a consequence, R.C. book
could not be handed over.
stated by Mr. C. Sitaramiah, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants that vehicle was kept stationed and the vehicle became a junk
because of the conduct on the part of the respondent in not allowing the
vehicles to be used. That is not the controversy which we can decide here.
these circumstances, we do not think that these are the cases for interference.
appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Pages: 1 2