M/S. Premium Exchange
& Finance Ltd. & ANR Vs. M/S. S.N. Bagla & Co. & Ors. 
INSC 1154 (16 July 2008)
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4456 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C)
No.2289/2007) M/s. Premium Exchange & Finance Ltd. & Anr.
...Appellant(s) Versus M/s. S.N. Bagla & Co. & Ors. ...Respondent(s)
ORDER Leave granted.
The question which
falls for determination in the Civil Appeal is: Whether the Executing Court is
competent to set aside, vary or modify the terms or contents of the consent
decree passed on 26th April, 2002 in C.S.No.406/2000 by the High Court of
Calcutta? Briefly, it may be stated that six suits were filed in which the
matter came to be settled vide consent decree dated 26th April, 2002. By the
said consent decree, disputes between the parties herein, namely, Birla Group
and Bagla Group, which disputes were subject matter of six suits and one
winding-up petition, came to be settled. The consent decree was a composite
decree for Rs.4,06,93,252/-. A further decree for a sum of Rs.13,14,042/- was
also passed on the basis of a claim made in the winding-up petition. The
details of the suits and the details of the execution applications (six in
number) are mentioned at page 182 of ...2/- -2- the paper book.
For deciding this
matter, we are required to examine the relevant clause of the consent decree.
We quote herein-below clause-K of the Scheme, forming part of the consent
decree, which reads as under:
"Both the Bagla
Group and Texmaco Ltd. will take steps for successful and quick implementation
of the Hydel Power Project. Upon commissioning of the Hydel Power Project
scheduled for completion in or around September/October-2002, evaluation of the
shares of the Neora Hydro Ltd. shall be made by Ernst & Young having its
office at New Delhi - Ernst & Young shall be appointed to value the shares
of Neora Hydro Ltd. as on the date of commissioning or June 30, 2003 whichever
is earlier. The fees of Ernst & Young including all expenses incurred for
the purpose of valuation of shares shall be paid by Bagla Group and Birla Group
in equal proportion. The decision of Ernst & Young on the valuation of
shares shall be final and binding upon both Birla Group and Bagla Group and
none of the parties hereo shall be entitled to raise any objection in any
manner with regard thereto. The terms of Reference to be made to Ernst &
Young for valuation of shares of Neora Hydro Ltd. is set out in a Schedule
quoted above, the position which emerges is that there was a basic dispute
regarding valuation of shares of Neora Hydro Ltd. and, in order to put an end
to the said dispute, the parties agreed that the decision of Ernst & Young
on the valuation of shares shall be final and binding upon Birla Group and Bagla
Group and none of the parties shall be entitled to raise any objection in any
manner with regard thereto. The terms of Reference ...3/- -3- to be made to
Ernst & Young for valuation of shares of Neora Hydro Ltd. were also set out
in the Schedule attached thereto. After the consent decree came to be passed on
26th April, 2002, the appellants-decree holders herein filed six Execution
Applications, one of which was G.A.No.2036/2005. In the said Execution
Applications, the respondents herein filed their objections and initiated
Section C.P.C. proceedings inter alia claiming that the valuation of shares by
Ernst & Young be set aside. To complete the chronology of events, the
learned Executing Court came to the conclusion that since there was lack of
transparency in preparation of the valuation report by Ernst & Young and
since the Valuer did not understand the duty cast upon them pursuant to the
consent decree, the Court directed the said Valuers to value the shares once
again upon taking both the parties to the dispute in confidence. The Executing
Court further observed, not by way of a finding but by way of an observation,
that it (Ernst & Young) might be acting on behalf of the decree holder in
different capacity and, under the circumstances, its opinion may not be
independent on the question of valuation. At this stage, it may be noted that
this finding of the Executing Court has been set aside by the Division Bench.
In the present matter, Civil Appeal is filed against the judgment of the
Division Bench. The Division Bench has ...4/- -4- further compounded the issue
by holding that the method adopted by Ernst & Young in the matter of
valuation of shares, namely, Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method was not the
correct method and that the Valuer should have adopted Net Asset Value method.
It accordingly directed the Valuer to submit another Report based on the NAV
method of valuation. We are of the view that, in the present case, Section 47
C.P.C. application made by the respondents herein was totally misconceived. It
was not maintainable.
The Executing Court
had no authority to set aside, modify or vary the consent decree dated 26th
April, 2002. We have quoted above Clause-K of the Scheme annexed to the consent
decree. Clause-K makes the valuation by Ernst & Young final and binding on
the disputing parties. If, according to the respondents, the opinion of the
Valuer was tainted, biased or that they had failed to do their duty as a
Valuer, then, appropriate proceedings ought to have been taken by the
respondents either for setting aside or modifying the consent decree before the
Competent Court but not in the Executing Court which has no power to set aside,
modify or vary the decree. It was not open to the respondents to move under
Section 47 C.P.C. for the relief, namely, to have the valuation report set
aside as that would amount to virtually setting aside a portion of the consent
decree which, as ...5/- -5- stated above, constituted very core and the basis
of the consent decree.
In our view,
therefore, without going into the merits of the matter, we hold that Section 47
C.P.C. application made by the respondents was not maintainable and ought not
to have been entertained by the Executing Court. Consequently, we set aside the
impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court as well as the Order
passed by the Executing Court.
It would be open to
the respondents to adopt such remedy, as it may be advised and as it may be
open to them in law. Since we have held that the proceedings adopted by the
respondents were totally misconceived and not maintainable, observations made
in the impugned judgment by the Division Bench will not preclude the Competent
Court from deciding the matter on its own merits, uninfluenced by such
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, states that the respondents
would take appropriate steps within four weeks from today.
We grant the said
request and direct that for four weeks the Execution Proceedings (six in
number), particulars of which are given at page 182 of the paper book, shall
not proceed. The appellants would be at liberty to proceed with the execution
applications on expiry of the period of four weeks.
..6/- -6- Civil
Appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
SUDERSHAN REDDY) New Delhi, July 16, 2008.
Pages: 1 2 3