RITONA CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD. AND ORS. ETE. ETC. versus LOHIA JUTE PRESS AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 855 · Decided: 05-02-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU, S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

~--
RITONA CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD. AND ORS. ETE. ETC. 
A 
v. 
LOHIA JUTE PRESS AND ORS. ETC. 
FEBRUARY 5, 2001 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. VARIA VA, JJ.] 
B 
~ ..... 
Suit-Government-Award of contract for preparation ofphoio Identity 
Cards-Dispute between contractor and sub-contractor-Suits by contractor 
and sub-contractors-In those suits applications filed for interim relief-
Interim order passed by High Court-Appeals preferred before Division Bench c 
of the High Court against said order-Order passed by Division Bench-
--< 
Appeal before Supreme Court-Held-An interlocutory order is made by way 
of aid to the proper adjudication of the claims and disputes arising in and 
not made beyond the scope of the suit or against the parties who are not 
before it-That neither excessive conservatism or traditional technical D 
approach nor over-zealous activist approach is conducive to advancement 
of justice-The High Court shall decide on· applications bearing in mind the 
~ 
salutary principle. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) 
Nos. I 0072-10073 of 1998. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.5.98 of the Calcutta High Court 
in G.A. No. 1835/97 and 4659/97 in A.P.O.T. No. 273 of 1997. 
~ 
With 
SLP (C) NOS. J 0456/98, 17765/98, 18274/98 and 2273/2001 Cont. Pet. F 
(Civil) Nos. 457-462/99 in SLP(C) Nos. I 0072-10073/98, 10456/98, 17765/98 and 
SLP(C) No. 18274/98. 
K.V. Vishwanathan Anil Agarwalla, Z. Rehman, K.V. Vijayakumar, Jaideep 
Gupta, H.K. Puri, A.K. Roy, S.K. Puri, Rajesh Srivastava, Ujjwal Benerjee, G 
a 
r 
Satish Vig, Vijay Hansaria and Jain Hansaria & Co. for the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Two suits were filed in the High Court of Calcutta. Suit No. 228/96 was 
filed by Lohia Jute Press against (I) Ritona Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. (2) Smrity 
855 
H 
856 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 1 S.C.R. 
A Securities Pvt. Ltd. (3) River Blue· Commodities Pvt. Ltd. and 18 others, 
alleging that having obtained a contract with the Government of Assam on 
17.7.1995, entered into agreements with defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on 31.8.1995 
for preparation and supply of 49,26,465 photo identity Cards-defendant No. 
1 to cover the area in the district of Barpeta and Kamrup; defendant No. 2 
for Nalbari, Darang and Marigaon and defendant No.3 for Dhuburi, Kokarajahar, 
B Bangiagaon and Goalpara [in all nine districts]. Defendant No. 4, who was a 
Director in the defendant companies guaranteed due performance of the 
•~-
obligation by defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were liable 
to furnish bank guarantee i.e., performance guarantee of Rs. 10 Lakhs each 
and on failure to do so, pledge share scrips with duly signed transfer deeds 
C by way of security. On various facts and grounds averred in the plaint, the 
plaintiff sought for relief against defendant Nos. I ,2 and 3 for (a) delivery of 
photo identity cards/video cassettes or cartridges containing photos of 
electors/generator sets or payment of Rs. 80,000 in lieu thereof; (b) decree of 
Rs.l crore against defendant Nos. I and 4; decree of Rs. 1 crore against 
D 
defendant Nos. 2 and 4; decree of Rs.l crore against defendant Nos. 3 and 
4, alternatively inquiry for damages; (c) declaration that shares stand pledged 
to plaintiff and for sale thereof for adjustment of the proceeds against dues 
to the plaintiff from the defendants. 
Suit No. 209-A/96 was filed by (1) Ritona Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. (2) 
E Smrity Securities Pvt. Ltd. (3) River Blue Commodities Pvt. Ltd. against Lohia 
Jute Press and its partners and shareholders [defendant Nos. 5 to 22] whose 
shares have been pledged and defendant Nos. 23 to 190 to whom shares are 
transferred for (a) return of the shares or debentures from defendants other 
than defendant Nos. 5 to 22 or inquiry into their value and decree for such 
sum as may be fixed; (b) decree for money in f~vour of plaintiffs or for inquiry 
F 
into damages and decree thereof; (c) decree for injunction restraining defendant 
Nos. 1 to 4 from lodging any of the Shares or debentures with defendant Nos. 
23 to 190 not to further alienate or alter ownership and if altered, to restore 
ownership to defendant Nos. 5 to 22; and (d) declaration that plaintiffs are 
owners of video cassettes, cartridges and photographs and injunction from 
G claiming ownership. 
These two suits arose out of contract awarded to M/s Lohia Jute Press 
for preparation and supply of 49, 26,465 photo identity c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.