LexFOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA versus SUKH DEO PRASAD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 1107 ..,. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA A ~ v. SUKH DEO PRASAD Civil Appeal No. 380 of 2007 MARCH 24, 2009 8 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] Interim order : Interim direction to tenant, in a suit by ) creditor against landlords/borrowers to deposit arrears of rent in Court and to continue to deposit the rents in Court with a c condition that tenant would pay interest if rent was not so deposited -Held: Such interim direction cannot be considered to be injunction order - Such interim direction would not fall under order 39 Rule 1 CPC as the prayer did not relate to clause (a), (b) or (c) of the said rule, nor under Order 39 rule 2 D t CPC as there was no contract between the creditor and the tenant nor any injury caused by tenant to bank - Injunction - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or39rr1 and 2. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Or.39 rule 2A - Application under - Held: Maintainable only when there is E disobedience of any injunction granted or order made under Rule 1 or 2 of Or 39 or breach of the terms on which injunction ~ was granted or the order was made - Direction to pay money either by way of final or interim order is not an injunction - On facts, on an application by bank, interim direction to tenant to F deposit rents to the loan account of landlord/borrower- Tenant vacated the tenanted godown - Landlord had no locus to file application under Or39 r2A alleging disobedience of interim order - Trial court erred in misinterpreting the interim order and in allowing the application under Or 39 r 2A. G ,( Contempt jurisdiction : Held: Cannot be invoked for enforcement of money decree or directions/orders for payment of money - If garnishee who is directed to pay money does not pay the amount, the remedy is execution and not action 1107 H 1108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 4 S.C.R. A for contempt or disobedience in Or 39 r 2A - Code of Civil .... Procedure, 1908- Or21 r46B, Or39 r2A- Contempt of Courts ~ Act, 1971. The respondent-defendant no. 1 and his brother B offered to construct and let out godowns to appellant and for that purpose obtained loan of Rs.1 O lakhs from Bank for construction of godowns and mortgaged their properties in favour of Bank. Three godowns were· constructed by respondent and his brother and let out to appellant for five years in 1978. On instruction of lessors, ' c appellant credited the rents to the loan account of lessors with the bank. Appellant vacated the said godowns and surrendered back possession in December, 1983. The Bank filed suit against the respondent- D defendants 1 to 3 and their guarantors for recovery of loan amount, by sale of mortgaged properties and balance if ~ any personally from the borrowers and their guarantors. Respondent contested the claim on the ground that the loan was obtained for constructing godowns for E appellant who had agreed to remain in occupation of those godowns till repayment of entire loan amount and appellant had vacated the godowns prematurely and should be made party to the suit and also made liable for ~ payment of the suit claim. The trial court directed F impleadment of appellant as seventh defendant in the suit. In June, 1994, during pendency of suit, appellant took one godown on month to month lease with a condition to surrender same without any notice. On 18.1.1996, the bank filed an application in its suit, seeking an interim G direction to appellant to restrain it from paying the rent for the said godown to lessors and to deposit the rents to ,. the loan account of defendants 1 to 3 with the bank. The trial Court allowed the application by order dated 27 .5.1996. It held that when appellant earlier took the H godowns on rent for five years, the borrowers had FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA V 1109 SUKH DEO PRASAD ="' ~ authorized the Bank to receive the rent with the condition A that if the lease was not continued, the lessors-borrowers would be liable to pay the loan amount from their own resources. It further held that bank was authorized under the loan documents executed by the lessors to receive the rents in respect of the mortgaged property directly B from the tenant. It directed appellant to deposit rent payable to landlords upto 31.3.1996 with the Bank by way of fixed deposit in the name of lessors. In regard to the ~ rent payable from 1.4.1996, in respect of every 12 months, the court directed that 2 months
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.