-
NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION (U.P.) LTD. ETC.
A
v.
SWADESHI COTTON MILLS CO. LTD AND ORS. ETC.
OCTOBER 23, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
B
Suit-Pending before Civil Court-Supreme Court's order for payment
of a certain sum per month-Not meant to be rent-To be adjusted as per
final order in the proceedings arising out of the suit~Withdrawal by the other
partJSubject to certain conditions and subject to adjustment as per orders C
of the Civil Court in the pending suit-Directions issued.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14412 of
1996 Etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.5.96 of the Allahabad High D
Court in P.A. No. 549 of 1995.
V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, Nikhil Nayar and T.V.S.N.
Chari for the Appellants.
O.P. Rana, Sudhir Chandra Agarwal, Rakesh U. Upadhyay and E
Salish Vig for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Delay condoned.
F
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
These appeals by special leave arise from the orders passed by the
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated May 14, 1996. It is not G
necessary to traverse the entire controversy. Suffice it to state that pursuant
to the orders passed by this Court on July 13, 1987, the appellants have
been depositing @ Rs. 25,000 p.m. on and before 10th of every month from
that date. This was further clarified by the order of this Court dated July
12, 1988 wherein this Court has stated that :
H
641
A
B
c
D
642
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
"We direct further that as regards the terms of the Order dated
13th July 1987 made by this Court directing the petitioner to
deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000 per month, the petitioner shall make
such deposit in a schedule bank to the credit of an interest earning
account opened in the name of the first respondent but it will not
be open to the first respondent to withdraw any amount from such
account without the prior order of the Court."
When a clarification was sought for, this Court by order dated
October 7, 1996 clarified in I.A. No.3/96 as under :
"It is clarified that the amount of Rs. 25,000 which is required to
be deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the directions
contained in the order d:ited July 13, 1987 and July 12,1988 was
not meant to be the rent for the part of the premises in the
occupation of the petitioner and that the said amount is to be
adjusted as per the final order that is passed in the proceedings
arisµtg out of the suit."
In view of the direction issued by this Court, the respondent would
be entitled to withdraw the amount from the account with the permission
of the orders of the Court but such withdrawal would be subject to
E adjustment as per the final order that may be passed by the Civil Court in
the pending suit. The High Court in the impugned order has directed the
respondent to withdraw the amount on furnishing bank guarantee as
indicated in the order as under :
F
G
"Respondent No. 11to14 shall be allowed to withdraw the amount
deposited by the plaintiff-appellant in terms of the orders passed
by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 13.7.1987 and 12.7.1988 after they
furnish a bank guarantee to the extent of the amount lying in
deposit and an additional guarantee to the extent of 10% of the
aforesaid amount. The bank guarantee shall be of a nationalised
bank and will be furnished to the satisfaction of Civil Judge,
Kanpur Nagar. The order for acceptance of bank guarantee shall
be passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff-
appellant."
Such withdrawal, as clarified by this Court, will be subject to the
H result in the appeal and subject to the adjustment as per the orders of the
N.T. CORPN. (U.P.) v. SWADESHI COTTON MILLS CO. LTD.
643
civil Court in the pending suit. In the event of the appellant succeeding in A
the appeal arising out of the suit orders passed by the civil Court, the
withdrawal. will be subject to the orders that may be passed therein.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.
G.N.
Appeals disposed of. B
Lex