w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



ALW Estates Pvt. Ltd. v/s M/s. Rajlaxmi Investment & Trading Co. Ltd. & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- T S K ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100DL2011PTC216745

Company & Directors' Information:- R P ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1988PTC032844

Company & Directors' Information:- B R ESTATES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1973PTC006650

Company & Directors' Information:- B N ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC059909

Company & Directors' Information:- P V T INVESTMENT LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U74899DL1988PLC121600

Company & Directors' Information:- P V T INVESTMENT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U67120PB1988PLC008068

Company & Directors' Information:- A & D ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201HR2005PTC066980

Company & Directors' Information:- S T INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U65993WB1990PTC050032

Company & Directors' Information:- H. L. INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U65990WB1975PLC128186

Company & Directors' Information:- J G TRADING & INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U65929WB1990PTC048704

Company & Directors' Information:- K C L ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101AS1998PTC005556

Company & Directors' Information:- M M INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U65921CT2008PTC020533

Company & Directors' Information:- G. N. G. INVESTMENT LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65910GJ1981PLC004128

Company & Directors' Information:- N R S ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201CH2007PTC030673

Company & Directors' Information:- A S G S INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120DL2008PTC173938

Company & Directors' Information:- B AND B ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC061137

Company & Directors' Information:- U N ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201RJ2008PTC027137

Company & Directors' Information:- G L INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U65993WB1991PTC051072

Company & Directors' Information:- A K R K ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102DL2009PTC196553

Company & Directors' Information:- C & C INVESTMENT LTD [Active] CIN = U67120AS1976PLC001654

Company & Directors' Information:- L S T P ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102TG2004PTC043308

Company & Directors' Information:- S M S INVESTMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1963PTC003988

Company & Directors' Information:- V R V INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120WB1985PTC039793

Company & Directors' Information:- R G ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH1980PTC023335

Company & Directors' Information:- S P INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70109WB1961PTC025099

Company & Directors' Information:- S K D ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL2005PTC133599

Company & Directors' Information:- A T M ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC048948

Company & Directors' Information:- P S D ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U45400DL2008PTC176939

Company & Directors' Information:- R A M ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2011PTC168444

Company & Directors' Information:- D M A ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200DL2006PTC154263

Company & Directors' Information:- R H INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH1978PTC020633

Company & Directors' Information:- T N B INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1986PTC025590

Company & Directors' Information:- D R ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1991PTC044762

Company & Directors' Information:- U K ESTATES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70101WB1987PTC042774

Company & Directors' Information:- G I R ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109DL2008PTC172534

Company & Directors' Information:- A R S INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U65993WB1990PTC048513

Company & Directors' Information:- V P INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1983PTC015714

Company & Directors' Information:- H A ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL2004PTC130515

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJLAXMI TRADING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120MH2011PTC223938

Company & Directors' Information:- A U ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101MH2003PTC140606

Company & Directors' Information:- V S ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC035684

Company & Directors' Information:- S D G ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC135116

Company & Directors' Information:- J S T ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC125624

Company & Directors' Information:- C J ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL2004PTC129134

Company & Directors' Information:- P R S ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201OR2005PTC008437

Company & Directors' Information:- D M ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110KA1995PTC018594

Company & Directors' Information:- M P I ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201WB1974PTC029445

Company & Directors' Information:- S M D INVESTMENT LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65993TN1995PLC033139

Company & Directors' Information:- G R D INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U67120WB1980PTC032727

Company & Directors' Information:- D V D ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U01119TN1996PTC034818

Company & Directors' Information:- C AND N INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1983PTC015710

Company & Directors' Information:- R C ESTATES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201WB1993PTC059267

Company & Directors' Information:- R V P ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101KA1997PTC022530

Company & Directors' Information:- R INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65993TZ1988PTC002181

Company & Directors' Information:- R S ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC035656

Company & Directors' Information:- J V A ESTATES PVT LTD [Converted to LLP] CIN = U70101DL1999PTC100233

Company & Directors' Information:- H N G L INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC066774

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z ESTATES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70101HR1988PTC030258

Company & Directors' Information:- A R ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201PB1996PTC018507

Company & Directors' Information:- T. G. ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200WB2007PTC112854

Company & Directors' Information:- K M S INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120UP1993PTC015287

Company & Directors' Information:- U M INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70101WB1979PTC032160

Company & Directors' Information:- G R ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC036722

Company & Directors' Information:- R V S INVESTMENT AND TRADING CO PVT LTD [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U65993MH1976PTC018785

Company & Directors' Information:- K. B. ESTATES PVT. LTD. [Active] CIN = U70101WB1995PTC071985

Company & Directors' Information:- A S T INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120DL1996PTC082812

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND A ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL2005PTC137857

Company & Directors' Information:- B N E INVESTMENT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U67120WB1974PLC029360

Company & Directors' Information:- S G S ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL2006PTC146822

Company & Directors' Information:- L G S ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101PB1997PTC020388

Company & Directors' Information:- K S J INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC061335

Company & Directors' Information:- A M ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC036712

Company & Directors' Information:- V A ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL1998PTC094897

Company & Directors' Information:- B AND M TRADING AND INVESTMENT CO LTD [Active] CIN = U65993DL1980PLC011184

Company & Directors' Information:- P T INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65999WB1995PTC067065

Company & Directors' Information:- H M ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL1999PTC101415

Company & Directors' Information:- K. S. R. INVESTMENT LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65992UP1988PLC010253

Company & Directors' Information:- M M TRADING AND INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65990MH1980PTC023258

Company & Directors' Information:- J R R ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U70102TG1996PTC025638

Company & Directors' Information:- N V R ESTATES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TN1991PTC020336

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND M ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1987PTC029438

Company & Directors' Information:- Z ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201OR2007PTC009579

Company & Directors' Information:- K M A ESTATES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U01119KL1991PTC006268

Company & Directors' Information:- H AND J ESTATES PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U70101KL1994PTC008410

Company & Directors' Information:- G C L ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01132KL2003PTC016592

Company & Directors' Information:- M R A ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC130318

Company & Directors' Information:- A P K TRADING AND INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51100MH1997PTC112742

Company & Directors' Information:- K B R ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG2004PTC044624

Company & Directors' Information:- A A ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100MH1996PTC101183

Company & Directors' Information:- J C K ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101PB1994PTC015508

Company & Directors' Information:- S H ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL1999PTC098548

Company & Directors' Information:- D H ESTATES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102DL2008PTC173478

Company & Directors' Information:- R M INVESTMENT & TRADING CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65993WB1980PTC032521

Company & Directors' Information:- P V TRADING & INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70101WB1993PTC057663

Company & Directors' Information:- T T ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL1999PTC098376

Company & Directors' Information:- N V TRADING & INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1992PTC054412

Company & Directors' Information:- J T INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65923WB1979PTC032344

Company & Directors' Information:- K R R ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74120DL2008PTC175671

Company & Directors' Information:- I. G. ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102UP1997PTC022687

Company & Directors' Information:- J. B. TRADING & INVESTMENT CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101MH2011PTC225513

Company & Directors' Information:- N. A. ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH1996PTC100412

Company & Directors' Information:- M J ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100MH1996PTC100864

Company & Directors' Information:- M M ESTATES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1984PTC019284

Company & Directors' Information:- R. K. N. ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70102DL2011PTC229032

Company & Directors' Information:- B P S ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL2005PTC134747

Company & Directors' Information:- A P D ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U07010KA2003PTC033072

Company & Directors' Information:- R K INVESTMENT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65993WB1969PLC027398

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJLAXMI ESTATES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL2000PLC104355

Company & Directors' Information:- G S ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70200OR1994PTC003790

Company & Directors' Information:- D J ESTATES AND INVESTMENT CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909MH1967PTC013780

Company & Directors' Information:- N M G C INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1982PTC014603

Company & Directors' Information:- K V N ESTATES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70102AP1990PTC011238

Company & Directors' Information:- M U ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201GJ2008PTC054015

Company & Directors' Information:- K M M ESTATES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70101KL1983PTC003679

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJLAXMI PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U11101RJ1984PTC003151

Company & Directors' Information:- M R R TRADING AND INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1980PLC023259

Company & Directors' Information:- C S R ESTATES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102TG1996PLC022903

Company & Directors' Information:- T M INVESTMENT CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U67120WB1971PTC028172

Company & Directors' Information:- S. A. F. INVESTMENT LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120DL1997PLC088611

Company & Directors' Information:- H K (INVESTMENT) COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990GJ1950PTC000511

Company & Directors' Information:- B S R ESTATES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70101MH1982PTC027312

Company & Directors' Information:- B V M ESTATES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45400WB1982PTC035588

Company & Directors' Information:- V N ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC056486

Company & Directors' Information:- P N INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Liquidation] CIN = U65910GJ1988PTC010715

Company & Directors' Information:- P Z ESTATES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC057111

Company & Directors' Information:- J S B ESTATES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70200WB1988PTC045397

Company & Directors' Information:- INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED [Under Liquidation] CIN = U65993KL1942PLC000449

Company & Directors' Information:- J D ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101CH1995PTC017412

Company & Directors' Information:- B R S ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100DL2005PTC132074

Company & Directors' Information:- G C N ESTATES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45205KA2014PTC074594

Company & Directors' Information:- 4 J ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC037974

Company & Directors' Information:- M R ESTATES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U65910WB1986PTC040812

Company & Directors' Information:- R P K ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100TZ2011PTC017474

Company & Directors' Information:- S R M INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67120WB1979PTC031888

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Dissolved] CIN = U67120WB1988PTC044464

Company & Directors' Information:- S V ESTATES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45202WB1987PTC042380

Company & Directors' Information:- K. C. ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101PB1971PTC003080

Company & Directors' Information:- S K ESTATES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U65910TG1988PTC008774

Company & Directors' Information:- N AND N ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101PB2000PTC023929

Company & Directors' Information:- N G ESTATES PVT LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U70109WB1989PTC045910

Company & Directors' Information:- R J INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120MH1976PTC018954

Company & Directors' Information:- B. K. ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U70109MH2010PTC206351

Company & Directors' Information:- N M G ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100MH1999PTC119686

Company & Directors' Information:- J P ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100MH2004PTC147563

Company & Directors' Information:- A R C ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102TG2003PTC041079

Company & Directors' Information:- A S ESTATES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109TG2015PTC099201

Company & Directors' Information:- B N K INVESTMENT CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U65993WB1971PTC028169

Company & Directors' Information:- N. N. ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109WB2009PTC138602

Company & Directors' Information:- A D INVESTMENT CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U67120WB1971PTC028170

Company & Directors' Information:- K. V. ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC035848

Company & Directors' Information:- A V ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC069258

Company & Directors' Information:- Y. P. ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70109DL1996PTC083304

Company & Directors' Information:- A I ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101DL1998PTC096770

Company & Directors' Information:- T D INVESTMENT CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65921CH1987PTC007637

Company & Directors' Information:- K. ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200DL1998PTC093478

Company & Directors' Information:- C G K INVESTMENT P LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65910AP1986PTC006088

Company & Directors' Information:- S K ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH1980PTC022170

Company & Directors' Information:- V. V. ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG1996PTC024406

Company & Directors' Information:- R S P TRADING AND INVESTMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD. [Active] CIN = U51909WB1986PTC041004

Company & Directors' Information:- L D INVESTMENT COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65921HP1988PTC008425

Company & Directors' Information:- K T R ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TN1997PTC038608

Company & Directors' Information:- S S TRADING & INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U52520MP1988PTC004578

Company & Directors' Information:- K L V ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC131749

Company & Directors' Information:- B T ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC059214

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND S ESTATES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70102TG1993PTC015414

Company & Directors' Information:- G K INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65993TZ1987PTC001919

Company & Directors' Information:- G V INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65993TZ1987PTC001920

Company & Directors' Information:- J V M ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100PB2006PTC029964

Company & Directors' Information:- B C K H INVESTMENT CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U67120MH1982PTC026819

Company & Directors' Information:- G A ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101RJ1988PTC004259

Company & Directors' Information:- H V INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120MH1997PTC107686

Company & Directors' Information:- T J ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109MH2006PTC160129

Company & Directors' Information:- S M R TRADING AND INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900MH1980PTC023260

Company & Directors' Information:- K M R TRADING INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900MH1980PTC023261

Company & Directors' Information:- J S K ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102MH2010PTC200354

Company & Directors' Information:- G V R ESTATES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45200MH1982PTC027386

Company & Directors' Information:- M N G ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2010PTC199399

Company & Directors' Information:- A P F ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400TG2008PTC060297

Company & Directors' Information:- R V V ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100TN2011PTC078802

Company & Directors' Information:- V R K ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG2004PTC044707

Company & Directors' Information:- M N ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201TG2001PTC036396

Company & Directors' Information:- M L INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67120WB1979PTC032180

Company & Directors' Information:- G J ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200CH2007PTC030994

Company & Directors' Information:- L V ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101CH2003PTC025815

Company & Directors' Information:- H I ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202DL2002PTC114576

Company & Directors' Information:- R S D ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202DL2003PTC121634

Company & Directors' Information:- K N R ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2011PTC212838

Company & Directors' Information:- G C ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74210DL1996PTC080922

Company & Directors' Information:- A B ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC129928

Company & Directors' Information:- T S ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC136010

Company & Directors' Information:- A & D ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC137537

Company & Directors' Information:- K R ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109DL2016PTC303645

Company & Directors' Information:- S & G INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65100DL2012PTC244271

Company & Directors' Information:- R W ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC066471

Company & Directors' Information:- Y D ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70102DL2006PTC156810

Company & Directors' Information:- S R D ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109DL2006PTC154337

Company & Directors' Information:- L J ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101DL2004PTC130459

Company & Directors' Information:- C B S ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL1999PTC098731

Company & Directors' Information:- R M K ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL2002PTC116402

Company & Directors' Information:- H B P ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL2005PTC141390

Company & Directors' Information:- C S P TRADING AND INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65910GJ1988PTC010943

Company & Directors' Information:- S B INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Liquidated] CIN = U99999RJ1959PTC001090

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND P INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67120PB1995PTC016124

Company & Directors' Information:- L T ESTATES PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U45201WB1986PTC041652

Company & Directors' Information:- M M B INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65993RJ1996PTC012698

Company & Directors' Information:- M G A INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1980PTC022406

Company & Directors' Information:- D P TRADING AND INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1981PTC024298

Company & Directors' Information:- M P TRADING AND INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51900MH1981PTC024297

Company & Directors' Information:- D S N INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65993TG1988PTC008554

Company & Directors' Information:- V. I INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67120HR1988PTC030206

Company & Directors' Information:- R J P INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65993GJ1981PTC004678

Company & Directors' Information:- D D P INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65910GJ1981PTC004695

Company & Directors' Information:- C J P INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999GJ1981PTC004662

Company & Directors' Information:- M P INVESTMENT CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U65993KA1974PTC002646

Company & Directors' Information:- INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U65990KL1946PTC000461

Company & Directors' Information:- INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U99999MH1943PLC007730

    C.O. No. 3836 of 2018 With C.O. No. 3840 of 2018

    Decided On, 19 June 2019

    At, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA

    For the Petitioner: Sakti Nath Mukherjee, Abhijit Mitra, Arindam Banerjee, Arpita Saha, Animesh Pal, Advocates. For the Opposite parties: S.P. Roychowdhury, Saptanshu Basu, Prabal Kumar Mukherjee, S.N. Dutta, Bhaskar Mukherjee, Advocates.



Judgment Text

1. The two revisional applications, having arisen from connected matters, are taken up together for hearing. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

2. On February 1, 1956, the decree-holder/opposite party no. 1, Rajlaxmi Investment and Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., entered into a lease agreement in favour of the judgment debtor/opposite party no. 2, namely, Electric Construction Equipment Industries Ltd. (ECEL), for a period of 40 years.

3. The said lease expired by efflux of time on January 31, 1996. The petitioner alleges that the lease deed dated February 1, 1956 was modified in the meantime, permitting ECEL to sub-let, transfer and assign the leasehold interest in favour of others.

4. The opposite party no. 1 instituted Title Suit No. 12 of 1997 on January 28, 1997 for eviction of ECEL from the aforesaid premises, which measured about 20 bighas (2,14,618 sq. ft. as per the opposite party no. 1).

5. On July 1, 2006, that is, during pendency of the eviction suit, the decree-holder Rajlaxmi Investment entered into an unregistered agreement with the petitioner ALW to grant lease to the petitioner for a period of 21 years, commencing after the eviction of ECEL, in respect of an area of 60,000 sq. ft. out of the parent premises, 3 which area was allegedly in actual physical occupation of 18 business associates of ALW (all of whom were mentioned in a schedule to the agreement) at a monthly rental of Rs. 1,80,000/-. An approximate sum of Rs. 18,00,000/-was allegedly received by Rajlaxmi from ALW under the said agreement, as per the allegations of the petitioner.

6. The said suit was ultimately decreed against the judgment debtor/opposite party no.2, namely, ECEL, on December 18, 2010. In the month of January, 2011, the decree-holder/opposite party no.1 levied execution of the said decree, giving rise to Title Execution Case No. 1 of 2011.

7. The judgment debtor/opposite party no. 2 preferred an appeal against the eviction decree but later, on August 1, 2014, withdrew the same. Thereafter on August 12, 2014, the judgment debtor ECEL surrendered possession of the parent premises by a letter of surrender in favour of the decree-holder, upon recording that 18 business associates of ALW had entered into an arrangement with the decree-holder and were making payments of rent directly to the decree-holder.

8. One Benarasi Rai, one of the 18 occupants, allegedly in occupation of an area of 26,442 sq. ft., filed Miscellaneous Case No. 4 of 2015 under Order XXI Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Sealdah. ALW, the present petitioner, was subsequently impleaded as a respondent in the said proceeding.

9. On January 7, 2017, Miscellaneous Case No. 4 of 2015 was dismissed, inter alia observing that the proposed lessee ALW Estate Pvt. Ltd. had not got possession of any portion of the decretal property pursuant to the terms of the agreement dated July 1, 2006.

10. Being aggrieved by such finding, ALW, the present petitioner, filed Miscellaneous Appeal No.34 of 2017.

11. ALW also filed a separate application under Order XXI Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, bearing Miscellaneous Case No. 5 of 2017, asserting its independent rights, primarily on the basis of the agreement dated July 1, 2006, the alleged payments made by it pursuant to it and on the basis of its alleged possession through its 18 business associates. On November 7, 2017, an application for stay filed by ALW in Miscellaneous Case No. 5 of 2017 was refused, primarily on the basis of the finding in the order dated January 7, 2017, passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 4 of 2015, to the effect that ALW did not have possession in respect of the suit premises.

12. ALW preferred against the said order a revisional application, bearing C.O. No.3635 of 2017, which was disposed of on November 22, 2017 by a co-ordinate bench of this court, holding that so long as the findings recorded in the proceedings of Benarasi Rai stared at ALW, there was no infirmity in the impugned order. However, it was observed, the position would be different when ALW succeeded in Miscellaneous Appeal No.34 of 2017.

13. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 34 of 2017, however, was dismissed as time-barred on February 6, 2018, consequent upon the rejection of a connected application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

14. ALW, the present petitioner, filed against the order dated February 6, 2018 a second miscellaneous appeal, bearing S.M.A.T. No.2 of 2018, along with an application for stay of further proceedings of Title Execution Case No.1 of 2011.

15. In connection with the said appeal, the petitioner filed an affidavit to the effect that it had not been dispossessed from the suit premises. A division bench of this court, upon recording that the decree-holder/opposite party no.1 accepted such position, directed that ALW should not be dispossessed from the suit premises without the express leave of the court. The division bench further directed both sides to file supplementary affidavits appending sketch maps of the parent premises, indicating the area under occupation of ALW.

16. On February 13, 2018, Joint Special Officers were appointed in the second miscellaneous appeal, on the prayer of both parties, to ascertain the measurement of each of the shaded areas, as indicated by ALW in a sketch map appended to its affidavit. The division bench also reiterated that the decree dated December 18, 2010 should not be executed in respect of the suit premises.

17. The Joint Special Officers filed their report, which was taken on record by the division bench on April 30, 2018, wherefrom it appeared that the petitioner was in possession of 65,864 sq. ft. area as identified by the petitioner, alternatively 63,026 sq. ft. area as contended by the decree-holder.

18. On July 18, 2018, however, S.M.A.T. No.2 of 2018 was dismissed upon holding that there was no infirmity in the order impugned therein.

19. The petitioner filed S.L.P. (C) No.22474 of 2018 against the order dated July 18, 2018, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on August 24, 2018.

20. ALW, the present petitioner, filed a further application for stay of all further proceedings of the execution case, on the basis of the 'admission' of the decree-holder as to the alleged possession of the petitioner, as recorded by the division bench, and the report filed by the Joint Special Officers, both in S.M.A.T. No.2 of 2018. Such stay application being rejected on September 4, 2018, ALW filed one of the present revisional applications, bearing C.O. No.3840 of 2018.

21. Meanwhile, the petitioner had filed two applications in Title Execution Case No.1 of 2017, one for recall of the orders of police help passed in the said proceeding by the executing court, including an order dated July 24, 2017, and the other for stay of the said orders granting police help as well as stay of all further proceedings in the execution case, alternatively an order directing the police not to render any help to the decree-holder in the execution case.

22. As per the allegations of the petitioner, the petitioner sought to move the said applications on January 31, 2018 but the executing court directed the said applications to be put up on the next date fixed in the execution proceeding. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred C.O. No.401 of 2018, which was disposed of by a co-ordinate bench on February 7, 2018, setting aside the order impugned therein and directing the executing court to take up the applications on February 8, 2018 and, if the petitioner prayed for an interim order, directing an order to be passed in presence of both parties by recording proper reasons.

23. The petitioner moved a put-up petition before the executing court on February 8, 2018, informing about the order dated February 7, 2018 passed in C.O. No.401 of 2018 when the Judge of the executing court, as per the petitioner's allegations, directed the records to be put up at 2 p.m. However, vide order dated February 8, 2018, the executing court dismissed both the said applications on contest, though allegedly those were heard only on the point of interim orders. Challenging the said order dated February 8, 2018, the petitioner has preferred C.O. No.3836 of 2018, which is the other revisional application being heard now.

24. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in C.O. No.3840 of 2018 argues that the agreement dated July 1, 2006, between the decree-holder and the petitioner, was a contingent agreement of 21 years' lease. In the said agreement, the decree-holder recorded its intention to induct ALW, the petitioner, as a lessee for 21 years "pending Title Suit No.12 of 1997 and measurement of the entire occupied space" on an ad hoc basis, which would be duly documented together with registration of the lease agreement after disposal of the suit.

25. It was agreed therein that the lease would be for 60,000 sq. ft. out of the entire premises, at a monthly rental of Rs.1.8 lakh, along with proportionate occupiers' share of municipal taxes leviable for 60,000 sq. ft., which was occupied by the 18 business associates of the present petitioner, who were represented by the petitioner. A further sum of Rs.5.4 lakh was to be paid by the petitioner on account of default in payment of rent since January, 2006, for the said 60,000 sq. ft. area.

26. The 18 tenancies of the business associates of ALW, covering the 60,000 sq. ft. area-in-question, was indicated in a schedule to the unregistered agreement dated July 1, 2006, out of which 2 tenancies were of Benarasi Rai, who had filed Miscellaneous Case No. 4 of 2015.

27. It is further argued on the basis of an observation in an order of a co-ordinate bench of this court in C.O. No.3635 of 2017 that the decree-holder did not deny the agreement dated July 1, 2006.

28. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner pointed out from an order dated February 8, 2018 that a division bench of this court, in S.M.A.T. No.2 of 2018, had recorded that the order proposed to be made had been indicated to the parties and the respondents therein had admitted the position, as averred by ALW in its affidavit, that ALW had not been dispossessed from the decretal premises despite the bailiff's visit on the day before. It was further directed in the said order that the petitioner ALW should not be dispossessed from the decretal premises without the express leave of the court till the disposal of the appeal.

29. Vide order dated February 13, 2018, the same division bench appointed Joint Special Officers to ascertain the exact area under occupation of the petitioner ALW, or persons claiming through ALW, as alleged by the petitioner. Execution of the eviction decree was also stayed. The present petitioner, who was the appellant therein, was directed to immediately deposit a sum of Rs. 2 crore in the executing court and to furnish an appropriate receipt on the adjourned date.

30. Learned senior counsel then places reliance on a report submitted by the Joint Special Officers, disclosing the extent of occupation of the present petitioner. It was recorded therein that the petitioner had identified 65,864 sq. ft. as being occupied by it. The contention of the respondent no. 2 therein, that is, the decree-holder, was that the area occupied by the petitioner was 63,026 sq. ft.

31. Placing reliance on the aforesaid materials on record, it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has made out a sufficient prima facie case of being in possession of the suit premises to the extent of 60,000 sq. ft. through its business associates, which area was comprised of 18 tenancies.

32. It is further contended that the petitioner has a legitimate and lawful right of occupation of the said 60,000 sq. ft. on the strength of the agreement dated July 1, 2006, which was not only admitted by the decree-holder but was acted upon by permitting the said business associates to continue in possession. Moreover, the petitioner had put in the substantial amount of Rs. 2 crore as directed by a division bench of this court as well as the amounts payable in terms of the agreement dated July 1, 2006. As such, the said agreement was acted upon, not only by the petitioner but by the decree-holder/opposite party no.1 as well.

33. In this context, learned senior counsel for the petitioner cites a judgment reported at (2000) 10 SCC 405 [Anwarbi vs. Pramod D.A. Joshi and others], in support of the proposition that when a person in possession of immovable property claims legal entitlement thereto and obstructs execution of a decree for possession, and a proceeding under Order XXI Rules 97 and 101 is taken out by the said judgment resistor, such person may not be dispossessed till his rights are adjudicated in appropriate proceedings.

34. In the present case, it is argued, the petitioner has taken out an independent application under Order XXI Rules 97 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, bearing Miscellaneous Case No. 5 of 2017. As such, unless the said proceeding is decided against the petitioner, the petitioner and/or its business associates cannot be ousted from the decretal premises.

35. Learned senior counsel next cites a judgment reported at AIR 1964 SC 993 [Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar and others], wherein it was held that even if the rule of res judicata does not apply, it would not follow that every subsequent application seeking the same reliefs on the same facts would be decided differently. In the event a matter is decided even in connection with an interlocutory application, the principle of res judicata might not apply but the court would not vary its decision from the previous occasion unless some fresh set of facts or change of circumstances is established. In the present case, it is argued, since the possession of the petitioner through its associates was admitted before a division bench in S.M.A.T. No.2 of 2018 and a report of joint receivers appointed by the said division bench categorically found the possession of the petitioner through such associates, the executing court could not refuse to grant stay on the ground that the petitioner had not established its possession in respect of the decretal premises, pertaining to 60,000 sq. ft.

36. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in C.O. No.3836 of 2018 argues that it did not lie in the mouth of the decree-holder/opposite party no.1 to allege that ALW had left the decretal premises a few years back, when the decree-holder itself had admitted the possession of ALW, through its associates, in the aforesaid second miscellaneous appeal. In this context, learned senior counsel for the petitioner cites a judgment reported at (2003) 12 SCC 219 [Ashan Devi and another vs. Phulwasi Devi and others] for the proposition that an interpretation of Order XXI Rule 97 which promotes or fulfills the object of the amended provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure of curtailing litigation, has to be preferred to the one which frustrates it. It was observed in the cited judgment that mere physical absence of a third-party at the time of execution of the decree was not a relevant fact to reject an application under Order XXI Rule 99 of the Code. From the trend and ratio of decisions of the Supreme Court surveyed in the reported judgments, it was held that if the objectors would have been present at or near the vacant land at the time of execution of a decree and had offered obstruction or resistance to the execution, they would have been entitled to seek adjudication of their rights and claims through the executing court under Order XXI Rule 97. On the same legal position and reasoning, it was held that even though objectors were not in actual and physical possession of the vacant land but as a result of delivery of possession of the land to the decree-holder, lost their right and control over the land to put to their use, they will have to be treated to have been "dispossessed" within the meaning of Order XXI Rule 99 of the Code. It was further held that such interpretation would fulfill the aim and object of the amended provisions of the Code by allowing adjudication of disputes of title between the decree-holder and the third-party in the executing court itself without relegating them to an independent litigation.

37. It is thus argued that the executing court acted without jurisdiction in refusing to recall the orders of police help and/or to stay such orders as well as all further proceedings to the connected execution case.

38. Learned senior counsel appearing for the decree-holder/opposite party no.1 submits that ALW had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated July 1, 2006. The plaint of the said suit had been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is thus submitted that since the petitioner has no longer got any substantive right to enforce the said agreement, which is the genesis of the present claim of the petitioner, the executing court was justified in refusing to grant stay of operation of the police help orders and the execution case in general.

39. This apart, it is submitted that no legal right in prasaenti was conferred on the petitioner by the agreement dated July 1, 2006. Moreover, the agreement was not only improperly stamped and unregistered, but proposed to create a parallel lease, which is unknown to Indian Law.

40. It is next submitted on behalf of the decree-holder/opposite party no.1 that the petitioner ALW was a party to the miscellaneous case filed by Benarasi Rai, one of the alleged business associates of ALW, being Miscellaneous Case No. 4 of 2015. Having suffered a finding in the said miscellaneous case that ALW was not in possession of the decretal premises, the petitioner had preferred a challenge by way of a miscellaneous appeal. Such miscellaneous appeal was dismissed as time-barred, consequent upon a connected application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act being rejected. Such order having attained finality, ALW could not now prefer an independent application under Order XXI Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, urging the same rights as claimed by it in Miscellaneous Case No. 4 of 2015. This apart, a representative of ALW had adduced evidence in connection with Miscellaneous Case No. 4 of 2015, which indicates that ALW was well aware of, and bound by, the dismissal of the said miscellaneous case.

41. It is submitted that apart from Miscellaneous Case No.4 of 2015, various other judgment resistors, claiming to be business associates of ALW on whose behalf ALW was litigating, had filed applications under Order XXI Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which were all dismissed upon being heard together on January 7, 2017. Thus, the finding rendered in the said proceedings at the time of dismissal, that ALW was not in possession of the suit premises pursuant to an agreement dated July 1, 2006, is binding on ALW and operates as res judicata in the present proceeding. It is also argued that the application filed by ALW for condonation of delay in presenting the miscellaneous appeal against the order of Miscellaneous Case No. 4 of 2015 was rejected, inter alia on the ground that ALW had produced procured documents, which did not speak well of the conduct of ALW. Hence, the executing court acted well within its jurisdiction to refuse the prayer for stay made by ALW in the execution proceeding, after having exhausted all fora.

42. Learned senior counsel for the opposite party no.1 next submits that the alleged 'admission' in the S.M.A.T. No. 2 of 2018 was for a limited purpose, pertaining to measurement of the shaded portion as indicated in the sketch map provided by ALW with its affidavit. It is submitted that it would be clear from the orders passed by the concerned division bench in the said appeal that the appointment of Joint Special Officers was for the limited purpose of ascertaining the area in occupation of the petitioner, allegedly through its business associates, as averred in the affidavit of ALW. There was no adjudication in any of the said orders as to ALW being in possession. The contents of the Joint Special Officers' report as well as the orders-in-question would make it evident that the question of occupation of the suit premises was not conclusively decided by virtue of those orders. The said exercise was only in respect of the allegation made by the ALW in its affidavit and was restricted thereto.

43. Learned senior counsel for the opposite party no.1 argues that all findings and/or observations in the first few orders passed in the aforesaid miscellaneous appeal and the Special Officers' report merged in the order dismissing the said second miscellaneous appeal. In view of the final dismissal of the appeal, the previous observations were rendered academic and toothless and cannot now be relied on as conclusive in any manner whatsoever.

44. It is pointed out on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 that the alleged 'admission' as to possession, as recorded in the order dated February 8, 2018 passed in S.M.A.T. No. 2 of 2018 and harped on by the petitioner, could not be read out of context. The said observation in the aforesaid order was not of a blanket nature, but was qualified by the specific denial as to possession made by the opposite party no.1 in paragraph no. 3 of its written objection to the petitioner's application under Order XXI Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

45. Learned senior counsel for the opposite party no.1 argues that the conduct of the petitioner has all along been mala fide and the alleged business associates of the petitioner are being set up one after the other for claiming independent rights in the decretal premises. Even after a bunch of such applications, filed at the instance of some of those alleged associates under Order XXI Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was dismissed, the petitioner itself has now taken out Miscellaneous Case No. 5 of 2017 to urge the same points which were turned down previously on several occasions. It is also submitted on behalf of the opposite party no.1 that the unregistered agreement dated July 1, 2006 contemplated a future agreement of lease, to be executed upon the uncertain event of disposal of the pending eviction suit. Such a document could not be relied on for the purpose of agitating any present right, title and/or interest in favour of the petitioner, entitling the petitioner to an order of stay.

46. Learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite party no.1 cites a judgment reported at (1970) 1 SCC 558 [Chikkam Koreswara Rao vs. Chikkam Subba Rao and others] for the proposition that 'admissions' should be read with other evidence in a harmonious manner. In the said reported judgment, such a reading of the alleged admission, along with other evidence, made it clear to the Supreme Court that there was no admission, as alleged therein, at all. It is argued that in the present case, the specific denial to the alleged possession of the petitioner in the pleadings by the opposite party no.1, as well as other materials on record, cannot be overlooked in considering the stray observation in the order dated February 8, 2018 as regards no objection having been raised on such score. The gamut of the said order revolved around the tentative measurement of the alleged occupation by the petitioner and could not have any force as an admission on the part of the opposite party no. 1.

47. Learned senior counsel for the opposite party no.1 next cites a judgment reported at ILR 1987 (1) Delhi 524 [State Bank of India vs. M/s Midland Industries & others], in support of the contention that although Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (relevant in the said matter) has been couched in a very wide language, before a court can act under Rule 6, the admission must be clear, unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal. A judgment on admission by the defendant is not a matter of right; rather, it is a matter of discretion of the court, which has to be judicially exercised. If a case involves questions which cannot be conveniently disposed of on a motion under the rule, the court is free to refuse exercising discretion in favour of the party invoking it. It is not in each case where the said provision is invoked that the court would be obliged to pass a decree; each case would depend upon its peculiar facts. Where the defendants raised objections which go to the very root of the case, it was held not to be proper to exercise the discretion. Where there are serious questions of law to be asked and determined, the court could not proceed on the basis of such admissions. Likewise, it was held, where specific issues have been raised in spite of admission on the part of the defendants, the plaintiff would be bound to lead evidence on those issues and prove the same before he becomes entitled to a decree.

48. Only if there is no dispute between the parties and if, on the pleadings or otherwise, there is such an admission as to make it plain that the plaintiff is entitled to a particular order or judgment, he should be able to obtain it at once to the extent of admission.

49. By relying on such judgment, learned senior counsel argues that, in the present case, there was no unequivocal admission on the part of the opposite party no.1 as to possession of the petitioner. A stray recording in an interlocutory order in the second miscellaneous appeal, which itself was ultimately dismissed as time-barred, could not create any presumption of possession of the petitioner in respect of the decretal property.

50. The opposite party no. 1 further relies on a division bench judgment of this Court, reported at (2005)2 CHN 601 [Dinesh Kumar Singhania vs. Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Limited] primarily for the proposition that an admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be clear, unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal and that such a right is not a matter of right and rather is discretion of the court.

51. Learned senior counsel for the opposite party no. 1 also cites a judgment reported at (2008)2 SCC 280 [Oriental Bank of Commerce vs. Sunder Lal Jain and Anr.], for the proposition that a statement by a counsel for a party that his client will consider a particular suggestion given by the other side would not amount to consent by the party concerned.

52. In such circumstances, it is submitted on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 that the applications ought to be dismissed.

53. In reply, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the executing court ought to have looked into the specific admission as to the petitioner's possession in respect of the decretal property, made before the division bench by the present opposite party no. 1. Although the interlocutory orders recording such admission ultimately merged into the final order of dismissal of the second miscellaneous appeal, the admissions recorded in such orders hold good even thereafter and bind the opposite party no. 1. Hence, it does not now lie in the mouth of the opposite party no.1 to say that the petitioner has not been in possession of the portion occupied by the 18 business associates of the petitioner, whose physical possession is, in effect, the legal possession of the petitioner.

54. It is further submitted that the agreement dated July 1, 2006 between the petitioner and the opposite party no.1 was also binding on the petitioner and the same was to take effect immediately in the sense that the opposite party no.1, acting upon the agreement, accepted initial payments and thereafter rent for several months from the petitioner, thus imparting sanctity and enforceability to the agreement.

55. Although couched in a prospective language, the agreement had become final and binding on both parties upon passage of consideration and upon the contingency contemplated therein having happened, being an eviction decree having been passed against the original tenant ECE (opposite party no. 2) and the surrender of possession by the opposite party no.2 in favour of the opposite party no.1 upon the understanding that the portion in occupation of the 18 business associates of the petitioner would be left undisturbed.

56. It is reiterated on behalf of the petitioner that the agreement has all along been admitted by the opposite party no.1 and there is no scope for the opposite party no. 1 to deny the same now.

57. Both sides also file their written notes of arguments, substantially reiterating the verbal submissions recorded above.

58. The basis of the petitioner's argument as regards their right, title and interest in respect of a portion of the decretal property, is the agreement dated July 1, 2006. It has been rightly pointed out that a co-ordinate bench, by its order dated November 22, 2017 passed in C.O. No. 3635 of 2017, observed that it was axiomatic to record that the said agreement was not denied by the decree holder/opposite party.

59. A perusal of the different facets of the agreement shows that the same was entered into during pendency of the eviction suit between the opposite party no.1 and opposite party no. 2 and contemplated that the lease by the opposite party no.1 in favour of the petitioner would be "duly documented together with the registration of the lease agreement" after disposal of the said suit. It is noteworthy to mention that the agreement, in the same breath, recorded that the decree holder/opposite party no.1 had "decided to induct" the petitioner as a lessee for 21 years "pending disposal of the aforesaid title suit and the measurement of the entire occupied space/godown/office of the present occupiers as on ad hoc basis which will be duly documented together with the registration of the lease agreement after disposal of the said pending title suit No. 12/1997 under the terms and conditions and stipulations as recorded" therein.

60. Although it was recorded further that that agreement should never be construed as a lease or tenancy agreement but as a mere understanding to enter into a lease agreement on disposal of the suit, the opposite party no. 1 committed to accept the petitioner as intending lessee under it subject to the disposal of the suit and measurement of the actual area under the possession of the business associates of the petitioner on ad hoc basis pending measurement of the occupied area. Ad hoc monthly lease amount/fees of Rs. 1,80,000/-was also to be paid in advance for each month within the 7th of every month. This apart, the petitioner was to pay Rs. 5,40,000/-on account of default of payment since January, 2006 for their purported occupied area of 60,000 sq. ft. for which a proper receipt would be issued by the opposite party no.

1.

61. Apart from the current monthly "lease amount", as mentioned in paragraph 4(a) of the agreement, the petitioner was also to pay in advance a sum of Rs. 10,80,000/-which would be adjusted per month from the deposit till it was adjusted in full.

62. The petitioner, who was described as "lessee" in paragraph 4(d) of the agreement, was also to pay the proportionate occupier's share of municipal taxes for 60,000 sq. ft. under the possession of the business associates.

63. The details of the said business associates, including their respective names and the areas under their occupation, was provided in the form of a chart, annexed as a schedule to the agreement.

64. By virtue of the agreement, the opposite party no.1 was to accept the persons/firms/companies named in the schedule as associates of the petitioner without going into the details of the agreements inter se between the petitioner and the said associates.

65. There were other provisions which had the combined effect of indicating squarely that the rights mentioned above were to devolve immediately on the petitioner, however, subject only to the contingency of the disposal of the suit. The petitioner has produced prima facie evidence, including receipts annexed at the end of the agreement dated July 1, 2006 and several rent receipts, that the petitioner had gone on paying the amounts stipulated in the agreement, which were duly accepted by the opposite party no. 1. Hence, the principles of estoppel and acquiescence prima facie debar the opposite party no.1 from disputing the rights of the petitioner to continue as a lessee in respect of the suit premises.

66. The agreement dated July 1, 2006 comprised of a contract of an executory nature and the initial parts of the agreement, particularly the liabilities of the petitioner, were discharged by the petitioner, thereby complying with its part of the liabilities. Consideration also passed between the parties. What was left at the juncture of entering into the agreement was merely the happening of the contingency of disposal of the eviction suit, which crystallized into reality on December 18, 2010 with the passing of the eviction decree against the opposite party no. 2.

67. That apart, a surrender letter dated August 12, 2014 was also produced, whereby the opposite party no.2, namely ECE, surrendered possession of the parent premises to the decree holder/opposite party no.1, upon recording that 18 business associates of ALW, the petitioner, had entered into an arrangement with Rajlaxmi, the decree holder/opposite party no.1, and were making payment of rents directly to the opposite party no.1.

68. Hence it is seen that, pursuant to the agreement dated July 1, 2006 an ad hoc possessory right started operating in favour of the petitioner, which was to ripen into a full-fledged lease upon happening of the contingency of disposal of the eviction suit. Such contingency occurred on the disposal of the suit, reinforced by the subsequent surrender of the judgment debtor /opposite party no.2, upon mentioning the occupation of the petitioner through its business associates, in respect of a part of the parent premises.

69. Since no objection was raised specifically by the opposite party no.1 as to registrability or paucity of stamps of the agreement dated July 1, 2006, there is no necessity to go into the submissions made in that regard by the petitioner. Moreover, it would be premature to go into such consideration at this juncture, since the document has not yet been tendered in evidence in the concerned miscellaneous case.

70. The rent receipts and initial receipts of payment of substantial amounts by the petitioner to the opposite party no.1 confer a valuable possessory right on the petitioner, to ripen into a lease in all its connotations, which is binding on the opposite party no. 1.

71. As regards possession, the petitioner primarily relies on the orders dated February 8, 2018 and February 13, 2018 passed by a division bench of this court in S.M.A.T. No. 2 of 2018. The first such order records inter alia that the order proposed to be made had been indicated to the parties and it was accepted by the respondents therein (including the present opposite party no.1) that an affidavit had been filed by the appellant (present petitioner) indicating that they had not yet been dispossessed from the decretal premises despite the bailiff's visit the day before. It was further recorded that the appellant should not be dispossessed from the decretal premises without the express leave of that court till disposal of the appeal, which indicates that the petitioner was in possession on that date. By the same order, the division bench directed both parties to file supplementary affidavit appending sketch map of the entire decretal premises and indicating the area under occupation of the appellant therein.

72. Such observations show that the prima facie possession of the petitioner was found by the division bench.

73. In the order dated February 13, 2018, it was further recorded that the respondents submitted, without prejudice to their rights and contentions, that for the time being the sketch map that had been appended to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant might be accepted as the working document, if only to pinpoint the portions of the decretal premises claimed to be in the occupation of the appellant, whether directly or through lessees or licencees under the appellant as indicated in the sketch map itself.

74. Both sets of parties sought the appointment of a special officer only for the purpose of ascertaining the exact areas in the decretal premises under the occupation of the appellant or persons claiming through the appellant and the respective areas under their occupation.

75. The aforesaid observations clearly indicate that the respondent in the said appeal, including the present opposite party no. 1, conceded to the position that the special officer was to ascertain the exact areas in the decretal premises "under the occupation of the appellant or persons claiming through appellant and the respective areas under their occupation". Hence, the submission currently made by the opposite party no.1 that the ascertainment was only to be in respect of the possession claimed by their petitioner and not the actual possession, is belied by the aforesaid observations.

76. Accordingly, the joint special officers appointed by the division bench undertook the task of measurement of the shaded areas as indicated in the petitioner's sketch map and the decree was directed not to be executed in respect of the premises claimed to be under the occupation of the appellant. The tenor of the orders dated February 8, 2018 and February 13, 2018 goes on to show that the doubt was regarding the exact extent of the occupation of the petitioner through its associates and not as to the factum of such possession itself.

77. According to the special officers' report dated February 26, 2018, the total area of occupation of the appellant, as identified by the appellant itself, was 65,864 sq. ft. However, what is interesting to note is that the said report also recorded that the measurement would be 63,026 sq. ft., "if measured as per the contention of the respondent no. 2". The respondent no. 2 in the said appeal was the present opposite party no.1. As such, the special officers' report virtually left no doubt as to the present opposite party no.1 also having admitted the possession of the petitioner through its business associates, or at least the business associates themselves, at least with regard to the 63,026 sq. ft. out of the parent decretal property.

78. Thus, the qualifier "without prejudice to their rights and contentions", was diluted by the subsequent concession of the respondents, including the present opposite party no.1 as indicated above.

79. There was no challenge to the aforesaid orders, which, even if interlocutory in nature vis--vis the appeal, attained finality in so far as the admissions recorded therein were concerned. The physical possession of the business associates of the petitioner was virtually admitted during the exercise of appointment of special officers and passing of the orders dated February 8, 2018 and February 13, 2018, culminating in the filing of the special officers' report.

80. Although such orders 'merged' in the final order, such merger did not take anything away from the admissions recorded in the said orders and the specific position that the petitioner's business associates were in physical possession of a portion of the decretal premises, despite the exact extent of such occupation being contentious.

81. The final dismissal of the second miscellaneous appeal was on account of limitation and did not consider the question of possession at all. Hence, the recording in the orders dated February 8, 2018 and February 13, 2018, which was subsequent to the order of the executing court which was challenged in the said appeal, would prevail over the findings of the executing court as regards possession.

82. As regards the finding of the co-ordinate bench in the order dated November 22, 2017 passed in C.O. No. 3635 of 2017, the same was also rendered in an interlocutory revisional application and could not be final as regards possession. Moreover, the same only observed that the finding recorded in Miscellaneous Case No. 4 of 2015, filed by Benarasi Rai, stared at the face of the petitioner so far as it related to the possession of the petitioner in respect of the said area.

83. In the light of the aforesaid findings, let us now examine what were the exact findings of the executing court in Miscellaneous Case No. 4 of 2015. The said order dated January 7, 2017, passed jointly in Miscellaneous Case No. 4 of 2015 and several other miscellaneous cases filed by some of the other associates of the petitioner, contained several findings, out of which the following are germane for the present purpose:

".......... The petitioner has filed the deed of agreement dated 01.7.2006 entered into between the respondent no.1 Rajlakshmi Investment and Trading Company and the respondent no. 3 M/s. ALW Estate Pvt. Ltd. which discloses that mere agreement of understanding to enter into the lease agreement on the disposal of the title suit being No. 12/1997 was entered into between the parties thereto, wherein it has been stipulated between the parties that Rajlakshmi Investment and Trading Company would accept some periodical payment from ALW Estate Pvt. Ltd. for the occupation of its business associates in respect of the decretal property. However, the agreement dated 01.7.2006 itself manifests that the business associates of the ALW Estate Pvt. Ltd. including the petitioner have been possessing the portion of the decretal property by paying rent or fees demanded by the respondent no. 2 ECE Industries Ltd. even prior to the execution of such agreement, which clearly reflects that the petitioner was inducted in the decretal property by the respondent no. 2 ECE Industries Ltd.

This has been transpired that the proposed lessee ALW Estate Pvt. Ltd. has not got the possession of any portion of the decretal property pursuant to the terms of the agreement dated 01.7.2006. Further, the petitioner has filed the agreement dated 11.6.1999 entered into between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 company ECE Industries Ltd., wherefrom it appears that the petitioner was inducted as the licensee or sub tenant under the respondent no.2 company M/s. ECE Industries Pvt. Ltd. in respect of some portion of the decretal property after expiry of the original lease granted in favour of the respondent no. 2 company in respect of the decretal property by efflux of time.

In such circumstances, I do agree with the version of the Ld. Advocate for the respondent no.1 company and thereby hold that the petitioner be construed as the sub tenant under the respondent no. 2 M/s ECE Industries Ltd. for the purpose of the present case and therefore, I find that in view of my foregoing discussions, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed and the petitioner is also liable to be evicted from the decretal property in the execution proceeding being No. 01/2011 instituted by the decree holder company against the judgment debtor ECE Industries Ltd. for executing the decree passed in connection with the title suit being No. 12/1997, according to the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Anand Nivas's case (supra), The Calcutta Credit Corporation Ltd.'s case (supra) and Bhoolchand's case (supra). "

84. What emanates from such observations is that the executing court found that the agreement dated July 1, 2006 itself manifests that the business associates of the ALW Estate Pvt. Ltd., including the petitioner, Benarasi Rai had been possessing a portion of the decretal property, by paying rent or fees demanded by the respondent no.2 ECE Industries Ltd. even prior to the execution of the agreement, which clearly reflected that the petitioner Benarasi Rai was inducted in the decretal property by the respondent no. 2 ECE Industries Ltd. In the light of such findings, it was held that ALW had not got "possession" of any portion of the decretal property pursuant to the terms of the agreement-in-question.

85. A meaningful reading of the said observations unerringly indicates that the executing court only held that ALW did not have physical possession of the decretal premises, although, in the same breath, it was found that the business associates of ALW were in actual physical possession of the said premises.

86. The rights of ALW did not fall for consideration directly and substantially in the said miscellaneous cases initiated by its business associates, agitating their independent rights in respect of the decretal premises, although ALW was a party to the said proceedings.

87. However, the independent rights of ALW were directly and substantially in issue in its own application under Order XXI Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, bearing Miscellaneous Case No. 5 of 2017. Thus, strictly speaking, the finding as regards the purported rights of ALW, arrived at in the previous miscellaneous cases, could not operate as res judicata in Miscellaneous Case No. 5 of 2017.

88. Moreover, it was never held that ALW had no legal right in respect of the said premises. The rest of the observations made in the said order dated January 7, 2017 in the previous miscellaneous cases, do not directly have any adverse effect on the interests of ALW.

89. The aforesaid position, combined with the provisions of the agreement itself, the surrender letter of ECE in favour of the opposite party no.1, the specific findings in S.M.A.T. No. 2 of 2018 as well as the special officers' report filed therein, all go on to establish a strong prima facie case of possession of ALW, the present petitioner, in respect of at least 63,026 sq. ft. out of the total decretal premises, even as per the contention of the present opposite party no.1, who was respondent no.2 in said second miscellaneous appeal.

90. The arguments of concurrent lease not being available in Indian Law, advanced on behalf of the opposite party no.1, is not directly relevant in the present context. What is relevant in the present case is the possessory right claimed by the petitioner by virtue of the agreement dated July 1, 2006, reinforced by the payments made by the petitioner pursuant thereto, all of which were accepted by the opposite party no.1, which culminated in leasehold rights being conferred upon the eviction suit between the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 being decreed and the possession thereof being surrendered by opposite party no.2 in favour of the opposite party no.1, recording specifically therein the legal possession of ALW through its business associates, who were in admitted physical possession.

91. Hence, the materials on record indicate that the petitioner established a strong prima facie case to go for trial in Miscellaneous Case No. 5 of 2017, which was entirely overlooked by the executing court in first refusing stay of the execution case and then refusing to recall the writ of possession and to stay its hands in respect of the execution proceedings, which are the two orders impugned respectively in the present revisional applications.

92. Apart from the prima facie case being strong in favour of grant of stay, the balance of convenience and inconvenience as well as the imminent risk of irreparable injury and substantial loss are all in favour of grant of stay of the execution case, in view of the severe consequences which would follow in the event the petitioner's legal possession is obliterated by the oblique method of dispossessing its business associates through whom the petitioner is in constructive possession, from the decretal premises, before deciding Miscellaneous Case No. 5 of 2017 on its merits.

93. However, since the area occupied by the petitioner through its associates is substantial, it ought to be open for the executing court to impose appropriate occupation charges for the grant of stay.

94. As regards the judgments cited on behalf of the opposite party no. 1, although the proposition

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

s laid down therein are beyond doubt, the ratio laid down therein is not directly applicable to the present case. Even if the ratio laid down in Chikkam Koreswara Rao's case (supra) is applied, the admissions of the opposite party no. 1, made in SMAT No. 2 of 2018, read with other evidence, indicate that the petitioner has been in possession through its business associates. 95. Although the judgment of State Bank of India vs. M/s Midland Industries & others (supra) is not directly relevant, since the same was rendered in the specific context of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has its own sphere of application, the admission in the present case was clear and unambiguous and left no doubt, at least prima facie, as to the possession of the petitioner through its associates. 96. As regards the division bench judgment reported at (2005)2 CHN 601 [Dinesh Kumar Singhania vs. Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Limited], the same was also rendered in connection with an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code. Even if the ratio laid down therein is applied to the present case, the admission was clear and unequivocal as to the legal possession of the petitioner through its business associates. 97. The judgment in Oriental Bank of Commerce vs. Sunder Lal Jain and Anr. (supra), on the proposition that a statement by a counsel that his client will consider a particular suggestion would not amount to consent, has no application in the present case, since the concession given in SMAT No. 2 of 2018 was on several dates and culminated in a special officers' report which was never challenged, thereby precluding the present opposite party no. 1 from resiling from such position and arguing that the same was the mere statement by a counsel. The circumstances clearly show that such concession and recordings of fact were within the full knowledge of the opposite party no. 1 and the present effort to dilute the same is a mere afterthought. 98. As regards the judgment of Anwarbi vs. Pramod (supra), cited by the petitioner, there cannot be any quarrel with the proposition laid down therein, that the High Court therein had erred in dismissing the appellant's application seeking adjudication of her rights on the premise that the application was premature since she was in possession. The other proposition laid down therein, that the decree holder was to take appropriate steps under Order XXI Rule 97 for removal of obstruction and to have the rights of the parties, including the obstructionist, adjudicated under Order XXI Rule 101, also applies to the present case. 99. As regards the judgment reported at (2003) 12 SCC 219 [Ashan Devi and another vs. Phulwasi Devi and others], also cited on behalf of the petitioner, the proposition laid down therein is also well-settled, being that the executing court has to adjudicate the inter se claims of the decree holder and third parties in the execution proceedings themselves in the light of the aim and object of the amendments made to the Code of Civil Procedure, of curtailing and expediting litigation. 100. Lastly, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Arjun Singh's case (supra) cited by the petitioner, holds good even till the present day and is applicable to the admission made by the opposite party no.1 in SMAT No. 2 of 2018. 101. Accordingly, C.O. Nos. 3836 of 2018 and 3840 of 2018 are allowed, thereby setting aside the orders impugned therein respectively and granting stay of all further proceedings in Title Execution Case No. 1 of 2011 pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Sealdah, District: North 24 Pagans till disposal of Miscellaneous Case No. 5 of 2017. The executing court, however, is directed to assess the appropriate occupation charges as condition for such stay, upon hearing both sides and permitting both sides to produce documentary and other evidence, if necessary, to establish the appropriate occupation charges, positively within one month from the date of communication of this order to the executing court. Till such decision on the point of occupation charges, the stay granted herein will remain unconditional. However, upon the assessment of occupation charges by the executing court, the stay granted herein will become conditional on the payment of such occupation charges as per the schedule and in terms of the period for which the payment is to be made, both to be decided by the executing court. It is further expected that the executing court shall make endeavour to dispose of Miscellaneous Case No. 5 of 2017 as expeditiously as the business of the said court permits, preferably within three months from the assessment of the occupation charges. 102. It is made clear that all the findings rendered herein have been arrived at for the limited purpose of deciding the stay application of the petitioner and will not be binding on the executing court at the final hearing of Miscellaneous Case No. 5 of 2017. The executing court will be free to decide the said miscellaneous case on its own merits, in accordance with law, without being influenced in any manner by the present observations. 103. There will be no order as to costs. 104. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
O R