KR.GEORGE versus M/S. INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 461 · Decided: 21-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
KR.GEORGE 
A 
v. 
MIS. INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 21, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
Decree-&ecution of-Compromise as to payment by third party to 
decree holder in appellate court-Jn lieu thereof sale of property in favour 
of the third party-Property developed by the third party-Despite the C 
compromise, judgment debtor filing review petition-Dismissal thereof-Jn 
appeal to this Court opportunity given to judgment debtor to deposit the 
decreetal amount-Failure to deposit-Held: Jn view of the facts of the case 
impugned orders do not call for interference as the appeal is not bonafide. 
A recovery suit was decreed against the appellant. In execution thereof, D 
the property in question was purchased by the decree holder. An application 
by appellant for setting aside the court sale, was dismissed by District Court. 
The order of District Court was challenged in High Court. Appellants-
judgment debtors in order to raise the decree debt, procured respondent Nos. 
9 and 10. In view of the offer from the respondents and acceptance thereof 
from the decree holder, compromise was entered into, and setting aside the E 
execution sale, sale of the property in favour of the respondents were directed. 
Sale certificates were issued in their favour. Later, the appellant filed review 
petition on the ground that fraud has been practised in the Court in reaching 
the compromise and set up a third party who expressed his willingness to 
remit the entire sale consideration before High Court for taking assignment F 
of the property in his favour. The review petition was dismissed by High Court. 
In appeals to this Court on the request of appellant, seeking opportunity 
to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 crores to show his bonafide, this Court in view of 
the third party showing his willingess to take the property before High Court, 
directed him to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 crores within a specified time. The G 
third party did not comply with the direction. 
Respondent No. 9 filed an affidavit stating therein that consequent to 
the order of this Court, the appellant published an advertisement in 
Newspapers offering sale of the property involved without disclosing his name, 
~I 
H 
462 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A and thus the advertisement was an abuse of this Court's order and showed 
that offer to purchase the land by the said third party was not bonajide or 
genuine. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
B 
HELD: In view of the events subsequent to the sale of the properties to 
respondent Nos. 9 and 10, they have taken various steps to obtain the plan 
approved and also taken steps for construction of the building, etc., there is 
absolutely no bonajide on the part of the appellant in approaching this Court. 
(465-D-E( 
· C 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4226 of 2006. 
From the Judgment and Final Order dated 12.3.2004 of the High Court 
ofKerala at Emakulam in R.P. No. 359/2003. 
WITH 
D 
C.A. No. 4227/2006. 
K. Sukumaran and N.R. Shonker (for M/s. T.T.K. Deepak & Co.) for the 
Appellant. 
T.L. Vishwanatha Iyer, M.N. Krishnamani, L. Nageshwara Rao, K.V. 
E Mohan, K.R. Nambiar, Fazlin Anam, E.M.S. Anam and Asha Gopalan Nair for 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. AR LAKSHMANAN, J. Delay condoned. 
F 
Leave granted in both the special leave petitions. 
Civil Appeal No. 4226 of2006 (@ S.L.P. (C) No. 3177 of2005) was filed 
against the final order dated 12.3.2004 passed by the High Court of Kerala in 
R.P. No. 359 of2003. Civil Appeal No. 4227 of2006 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.3178 of 
G (2005) was filed against the final order dated 9.4.2004 passed by the High 
Court of Kerala in C.M.A. No.63 of2000. 
We have heard the arguments advanced by Mr. K. Sukumaran, learned 
Senior counsel for the appellant and the arguments of Mr. T.L.V. Iyer, Mr. M.N. 
Krishnamani and Mr. L.N. Rao, learned Senior counsel for the respective 
H respondents. We have cardully perused the orders passed in C.M.A. No.63/ 
..
K.R. GEORGE>-. INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING CORP. [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 
463 
2000 And also the orders passed in R.P. No. 359/2003 and we have also A 
considered other documents placed on re~ord. A careful perusal of the orders 
in C.M.A. and the Review Petition, in our opinion, would reveal that both the 
appeals lack merits and one liable to be dismissed for the reasons recorded 
in the orders passed in C.M.A. and Review Petition. When the insta
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.