PAWAN KUMAR ARYA AND OTHERS versus RAVI KUMAR ARYA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2020] 4 S.C.R. 770 · Decided: 02-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
770
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
PAWAN KUMAR ARYA AND OTHERS
v.
RAVI KUMAR ARYA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos. 945-946 of 2020)
MARCH 02, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Suit – Relief against the transfer of property – Execution of
consent decree – The dispute was with respect to a property – The
dispute was between the appellants- original plaintiffs (PA Group)
and respondent nos. 1 to 6-original defendant nos. 1 to 6 (RA Group)
and also between original defendant no. 10-Developer/Builder –
The disputed property was of K.F. Pvt. Ltd. – In the said Company,
25% of the shareholding was with M.P. Recycling Company (Jointly
held by plaintiffs and defendants nos. 1 to 6) and the remaining
75% of the shareholding with defendants nos. 1 to 6 in their
individual capacities – According to the plaintiffs, defendants nos.
1 to 6 entered into a purported Development Agreement with
defendant no. 10, to develop the disputed property behind the back
of plaintiffs – As per plaintiffs, the defendants nos. 1 to 6 received
Rs. 45 crores from the developer and 15 flats & 72 car parking
spaces under the development agreement – According to the
plaintiffs, the defendant nos. 1 to 6 did not give any rights/ benefits
in the said property to them – This led to the filing of the suit –
During the pendency of the suit, the suit came to be settled and it
was disposed of in accordance of the consent terms – As per
plaintiffs, the developer had in accordance with the consent terms
executed the letter of allotment in ‘Annexure E’ in respect of the 8
apartments, which were to fall in the share of the plaintiffs, but
defendant nos. 1 to 6 refused to abide by the consent terms and
counter-sign the letter of allotment as per ‘Annexure E’ – The plaintiff
initiated proceedings for the execution of the consent decree viz.
for execution of the document at ‘Annexure E’ – The execution
application was rejected by the Single Judge of the High court and
it was observed that unless and until the supplementary consent
terms are entered into between the parties, there is no obligation on
the part of defendant nos. 1 to 6 to execute the letter of allotment in
the form of ‘Annexure E’ – The Division Bench of the High Court
[2020] 4 S.C.R. 770
770
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
771
confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge of
the High Court – On appeal, held: From the consent terms, it appears
that both the parties – PA Group and RA Group decided to resolve
and settle the other disputes also i.e. the other larger companies
and its constituents – The entire consent terms/ consent decree is
required to be acted upon and/ or implemented by both the parties
otherwise, the object and purpose to resolve all the disputes will be
frustrated – Thus, there cannot be any execution of partial consent
terms/ consent decree – Also, the further execution of supplemental
consent terms/ family arrangement is required to be executed between
the parties, considering the relevant terms of settlement – The both
Single Judge as well the Division Bench were justified in holding
that the execution of the further supplemental consent terms/ family
arrangement is must – Therefore, both the parties directed to fully
comply with the consent terms/ consent decree and enter into the
further supplemental consent terms/ family arrangement after
following the modalities with respect to valuation, bidding etc. –
Also, RA Group to counter-sign ‘Annexure E’ letter with respect to 8
flats as per list at ‘Annexure A’ to the consent terms for which the
developer had issued letter – However, it is further directed that till
the consent terms/consent decree is fully implemented by both the
parties and the supplemental consent terms/family arrangement is
entered into/executed, the PA Group shall not alienate in any manner
the said 8 flats.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Having heard the respective parties and
considering the relevant terms of the settlement, this Court is of
the opinion that further execution of supplemental consent terms/
family arrangement is required to be executed between the
parties. For whatever reasons, the further supplemental consent
terms have not been entered into between the parties. Therefore,
as such, considering the fact that the parties entered into the
consent terms/settlement for a complete parting of ways between
the parties and so aimed at bringing about an eventual complete
quietus to the disputes between the parties a

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