MRS. KAVITA TREHAN AND ANR. versus BALSARA HYGIENE PRODUCTS LTD.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 340 · Decided: 11-07-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' 
A 
MRS. KAVITA TREHAN AND ANR. 
v. 
BALSARA HYGIENE PRODUCTS LTD. 
JULY 11, 1994 
B 
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, C.J. AND S.C. AGRAWAL, J.] 
Cod~ of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Section 144-Restitutionary jurisdic-
tion-Not exhaustiv,,_Scope explained. 
C 
The appellants who are the clearing and forwarding agents for the 
respondent's products instituted a suit in the Court or Senior Sub-Judge 
seeking a declaration or their lien over the goods or the respondent lying 
with them. Simultaneously, the appellants sought an ex-parte injunction 
"hich was granted by the Trial Court-and subsequently made absolute. In 
the meanwhile the appellants sold away bulk or the goods worth Rs. 32.4 
D lakhs under !he authority of the ex-parte interim order. The suit was, at 
the instance of the respondent, subsequently transferred to the High Court 
by an order of this Court. 
The High Court dismissed the suit on the undisputed ground that it 
E was hit by ~~ction 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. 
F 
The High Court also directed the appellants to rurnish security for· 
the sum of Rs. 25.4 lakhs in substitution of the goods sold away while 
declining the payment or the sale proceeds to the respondent. Aggrieved 
by the High Court's judgment, the appellants preforred the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that High Court erred 
about the scope and nature of restitutionary jurisdiction; that Section 144 
C.P.C. did not in terms apply; that the powers under Section 151 C.P.C. 
could not be exercised; and that the appeal against the order confirming 
injunction having been withdrawn the matter assumed finality and could 
G not be re-agitated in any subsequent proceedings. 
On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that since the goods 
were converted into money the High Court quite appropriately directed 
furnishment of security. 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
340 
KA VITA (MRS.) v. BALSARA HYGIENE LTD. 
341 
HELD : 1. The law of Restitution encompasses all claims founded A 
upon the principle of unjust enrichment. Section 144 C.P.C. incorporates 
only a part of the general law of restitution. It is not exhaustive. 
[350-B, 351-G] 
Binayk Swain v. Ramesh Chandra Panigrahi & Anr., [1966] 3 SCR 24; 
Gangadhar & Ors. v. Raghubar Dayal & Ors., AIR (1975) All. 102 F.B.; State B 
Govt. of Andhra Pradesh v. Mis Manickchand Jeevraj & Co., Bombay, AIR 
(1973) A.P. 27, relied on. 
Allexander Rozer Charles Camie v. The Acomptoir D' Escompte De 
Paris, (1869-71) 3 AC 465; Jai Berham v. Kedar Nath Marwari & Ors., AIR 
(1922) P.C. 269; Law of Restitution Golf & Jones, 4th Edn. Page 31 and C 
Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn. p. 434, referred to. 
2. The jurisdiction to make restitution is inherent in every court and 
will be exercised whenever the justice of the case demands. It will be 
exercised under inherent powers where the case did not strictly fall within D 
the ambit terms of Section 144 CPC. The instant case may not strictly fall 
within the terms of Section 144 CPC; but the aggrieved party in such a 
case can appeal to the larger and general powers of restitution inherent in 
every court. [352-A-B, 351-H) 
Sakamma v. Eregowda, [1974) 2 KLJ 357, held inapplicable. 
E 
3. That an appeal filed against the interlocutory order was withdrawn 
does not make any difference. Upon dismissal of the suit the interlocutory 
order stood set-aside and that whatever was done to upset the status-quo, 
was required to he undone to the extent possible. This the High Court did 
by directing furnishment of security to the extent of the value of the goods F 
sold away under the cover of the interlocutory order. [352-E-F) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1581-82 
of 1993. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.1.92 of the D·elhi High Court G 
in R.F.A. (OS) No. 36 of 1991. 
Ashok Grover for the Appellants. 
Harish N. Salve, Sunil Jain, Vijay Hansaria for M/s Jain Hansaria & 
Co. for the Respondent. 
H 
342 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
VENJ.<ATACHALIAH, CJ. Civil Appeal No. 1581 of 1993 arises out 
of and is directed against the appellate judgment of the Division Bench 
dated 29th January, 1992 of the High Court of Delhi dismissing RFS [OS] 
B No. 36/91 preferred by the present appellants and affirming the judgment 
and decree dated 28th May, 1991 of the learned Single Judge dismissing 
the appellants' Original Suit No. 39/90. There was a furt
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.