Babu Bhai
Thiba Vs. Ashok Ravi Shankar Narval & Ors. [2009] INSC 1799 (15 December
2009)
Judgment
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8295 OF
2009 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.13638 OF 2007) BABU BHAI
THIBA ....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS ASHOK RAVI SHANKAR ORDER SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,
J.
1.
Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel.
2.
Since this appeal by special leave is directed against an order
granting interim relief the same may be disposed of by briefly stating the
relevant facts.
3.
The appellant claims to have lent certain sums of money to respondent
No.2, namely, Rafique Sarang Subsequently, the disputes arose between the
parties, which were referred to a named Arbitrator on 29.5.2001.
2 The
Arbitrator passed an award declaring the respondent No.2 liable to pay a sum of
Rs.78,96,300/- to the appellant i.e. Babu Bhai Thiba. The appellant sought
execution of the Award in the Bombay High Court. It appears that an order was
passed by the Bombay High Court in the execution application on 1.8.2003
directing attachment of several properties including the premises No.108 Palm
Spring CGHS Limited, First Floor, Swamy Samarth Nagar, Andheri (W), Mumbai. At
this stage, respondent No.1, Ashok Ravi Shankar Naval, filed Chamber Summons
No.1277/2003 seeking an order for raising attachment of the aforesaid premises,
on the ground that he is the owner, thereof. In support of his plea he relied
upon two agreements dated 1.10.1999 executed by respondent No.2, Rafiq Sarang,
his wife Mrs.
Shahnaz
Rafiq Sarang, with respondent No.1 and his wife. He claimed that under one
agreement he had paid a sum of Rs.9,53,000/- in cash as a loan transaction. The
second agreement was for sale of the aforesaid premises in case of failure to
repay the loan amount. Since Rafique 3 Sarang failed to repay the loan, the
premises were duly transferred in the name of respondent No.1 by the Society.
4.
Upon consideration of the entire matter, the learned Single Judge
observed that both the agreements are bogus documents and cannot be accepted.
Therefore, the Chambers Summons came to be dismissed by the learned Single
Judge by order dated 9.3.2005.
Respondent
No.1 carried the matter in appeal before the Division Bench. By order dated
4.6.2007 the Division Bench restrained the appellant from taking further steps
to dispose of the properties in execution of the award dated May 29, 2001. This
order is challenged in this appeal by special leave by the appellant who is
seeking to execute the Award.
5.
Initially at the time when the notice was issued on 17.8.2007 this
Court directed that until further orders, no third party rights shall be
created in the subject of dispute. Upon consideration of the entire matter, we
are of the opinion that the interim relief granted earlier by 4 this Court
needs to be continued during the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court.
However, we direct that the aforesaid order of injunction will be subject to
the appellant depositing a sum of Rs.15 lakhs with the Prothonotary and Senior
Master of the Bombay High Court. The amount deposited in the High Court shall
be invested in Fixed Deposit with a Nationalised Bank initially for a period of
one year; to be renewed periodically for like term till the disposal of the
matter by the High Court. In case the appeal filed by Respondent No.1 is
dismissed, the amount deposited, together with accrued interest shall be
refunded to the appellant. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
........................................J (TARUN CHATTERJEE)
.........................................J (SURINDER SINGH
NIJJAR)
NEW DELHI
DECEMBER 15 , 2009.
Back
