BANDEKAR BROTHERS PRIVATE LTD. ETC. versus M/S. V.G. QUENIM & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 5 S.C.R. 227 · Decided: 13-04-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 5 S.C.R. 227 
BANDEKAR BROTHERS PRIVATE LTD. ETC. 
v. 
MIS. V.G. QUENIM & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3533-3540 of 2012) 
APRIL 13, 2012 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.) 
A 
B 
Remand - Recovery suits as also various· applications 
filed by appellant against respondent - Orders passed by trial 
court, High Court and Supreme Court in the matter on C 
different occasions - Remand of the matter to the trial court 
for de novo consideration of the applications filed by the 
appellants, by the High Court - Interference with - Held: 
Considering the various disputes, orders passed by the courts 
and in order to shorten the litigation, taking note of the stand D 
taken by the respondents in the form of an affidavit that the 
property which was the subject matter of the undertaking given 
by them, would not be encumbered in any manner in favour 
of any third party nor any interest would be created in favour 
of any third party, interference with the remand order passed E 
by the High Court, not called for - Both parties permitted to 
clarify their stand briefly before the trial court and leave it to 
the court for passing appropriate orders, as directed by the 
High Court. 
Appellants filed suits against respondents for 
F 
recovery of money. Applications were also filed seeking 
ad-interim/interim reliefs. Thereafter, several disputes 
arose and several applications and petitions were filed. 
The trial court, the High Court and the Supreme Court on 
different occasion passed various orders. The G 
respondents gave an undertaking that they would not 
part with the shares 'VP' company and the Mining 
Machinery, however, pursuant to the order passed by the 
227 
H 
228 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 
A Supreme Court, the respondents demolished the said 
residential bungalow. Aggrieved, the appellants filed an 
application and the same was dismissed. The appellants 
then filed a writ petition. The respondents also filed a writ 
petition. The High Court disposed of the writ petitions by 
B remanding the matter to the trial court for de novo 
consideration of the applications filed by the appellants. 
Therefore, the appellants filed the instant appeals. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
C 
HELD: 1.1 Pursuant to the order of the High Court, 
the trial court proceeded to hear the arguments on the 
applications and, in fact, heard arguments on the said 
applications for a period of 11 day-s. It is seen from the 
records that the grievance of the plaintiff in all the 
D applications under consideration is that even though the 
defendants have given an undertaking that they would 
not part with the shares 'VP' company and the Mining 
Machinery on 13.05.2002 pursuant to the order of this 
Court dated 19.04.2002, the defendants demolished the 
E said residential bungalow, which was the subject matter 
of the undertaking given by them. In view of the long 
history of the case and various earlier orders passed by 
the High Court as well as by this Court, the matter is 
probed once again. [Para 6] [235-A-D] 
F 
1.2 Respondents fairly stated that though the 
respondents demolished the bungalow, they have not 
encumbered or sold the same to anyone, on the other 
hand after demolition, a new bungalow was constructed. 
He also pointed out that the said plot was adjoining to 
G one which also belongs to them. In the form of an 
affidavit, respondent No.6 and his wife-respondent No.7 
filed an undertaking. In both the affidavits, they 
highlighted that their ownership and entitlement o~ the 
property in question, construction of new bungalow ~and 
H the two plots. They also asserted that as on da~e both of 
BANDEKAR BROTHERS PRIVATE LTD. ETC. v. V.G. 229 
QUENIM & ORS. 
them are the owners of the said new bungalow and the 
A 
land on which the said bungalow is existing. They also 
made a specific undertaking that pending disposal of the 
suits pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, 
they would not part with the possession of the said 
bungalow as also the land on which the said bungalow 
B 
is existing nor the said bungalow and land on which the 
bungalow is existing shall be encumbered in any manner 
in favour of any third party nor any interest would be 
created in favour of any third party. It was prayed for 
recording of the said undertakings of respondent Nos.6 c 
and 7. As far as the sale of iron ore and machinery etc. is 
concerned, it is claimed that the injunction order was not 
served on them on 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.