Case Note & Summary
The appeals by special leave arose from an order dated December 15, 1995, passed by the Bombay High Court in LPA Nos. 155-156/95. The appellants, Shri Suvaran Rajaram Bandekar & Ors., challenged the High Court's order before the Supreme Court. The core dispute pertained to the power of the court to re-schedule the payment of amounts under a consent decree and the alleged failure to hand over R.C. books for seven vehicles. The Supreme Court issued notice primarily on the question of the court's power to re-schedule payments under a consent decree. During the proceedings, the respondents, through their senior counsel, stated that they had complied with the High Court's directions. Consequently, by order dated July 22, 1996, the Supreme Court directed the respondents to file an affidavit regarding the dates of compliance. The affidavit filed stated that all directions had been complied with and payments had been made on due dates except three instalments to be paid in the future—September 1996, October 1996, and December 1996. The Court observed that in a consent decree on compromise, the court would be loathe to interfere with the terms thereof by way of modification unless both parties give consent. Considering that a substantial amount had already been paid and only three future instalments remained, the Court held that it was not a fit case warranting interference. The Court also addressed the controversy regarding the non-handover of R.C. books for seven vehicles. The affidavit and records placed before the Court explained that R.C. books for five vehicles could not be handed over due to certain circumstances, the sixth vehicle's R.C. book had now been complied with, and the seventh vehicle was sold as scrap, hence its R.C. book could not be handed over. The appellants' counsel argued that the vehicle was kept stationed and became junk because of the respondent's conduct in not allowing the vehicles to be used, but the Court held that this was not a controversy it could decide in these proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Consent Decree - Modification/Rescheduling - Court Cannot Modify Consent Decree Unilaterally - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (general consent decree principles) - The Supreme Court examined whether the court had power to re-schedule payments under a consent decree in the absence of mutual consent; it observed that in a consent decree on compromise, the court would be loathe to interfere with terms by way of modification unless both parties consent; however, since the respondent had complied with the High Court's directions and only three future instalments remained pending, the Court held that it was not a fit case warranting interference and dismissed the appeals (Paras not numbered). B) Civil Procedure - Consent Decree Compliance - Non-Handover of R.C. Books - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (general consent decree compliance principles) - The Court addressed the controversy regarding failure to hand over R.C. books for seven vehicles; the affidavit and records showed that R.C. books for five vehicles could not be handed over due to stated circumstances, the sixth vehicle's book had been handed over, and the seventh vehicle was sold as scrap; the appellants' explanation that the vehicle became junk due to respondent's conduct was not a controversy the Court could decide; Held no interference warranted (Paras not numbered).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the court has power to re-schedule the payment of amounts under a consent decree in the absence of consent from both parties; and whether failure to hand over R.C. books for seven vehicles warranted interference in special leave appeals.
Final Decision
Appeals dismissed. No costs. The court held that in view of substantial amount already paid and only three future instalments remaining, it was not a fit case warranting interference; the R.C. book controversy could not be decided by the court; accordingly, appeals dismissed.
Law Points
- Court cannot modify consent decree without consent of both parties
- substantial compliance with consent decree prevents interference
- affidavit of compliance considered
- non-handover of R.C. books due to scrap sale not a ground for interference
- special leave appeal dismissed as not a fit case
