Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 437 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURTCompromise decree - settlement formed - Held that:- In the instant case, the salient feature is that the original owner agreed to sale the tea garden to AGR Plantations Pvt. Ltd., the nominee of the decree holder for a consideration of ₹ 63,00,000/- out of which ₹ 1,00,000/- was already paid and a further sum of ₹ 6,00,000/- and ₹ 4,00,000/- are required to be paid on the date of the acceptance of the terms and conditions while decreeing the suit and within 60 days from the date of such decree. The balance consideration was agreed to be paid simultaneously with the execution and registration of the proposed Deed of Conveyance. The liability of the Vijaya Bank and the other liabilities including the provident fund of the said tea estate were to be borne by the said nominee and such Deed of Conveyance was agreed to be executed within 90 days from the date of the decree or within such extended period as may be mutually agreed. The decree further provides that so long the Deed of Conveyance is not executed the decree holder shall continue to pay a monthly rent or a lease rent at the rate of ₹ 50,000/- per month without any deductions and / or abatement. The other term which could be seen from the said settlement is that the said decree holder would provide all assistance in getting the necessary clearance required under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also from the Deputy Collector of the Jalpaiguri. It is not in dispute that the objection was raised by the judgment debtor when an application seeking permission from the Deputy Collector of Jalpaiguri was filed under his signage yet the judgment debtor accepted the monthly rent in respect thereof. The sum and substance of the said settlement is that the judgment debtor would sale the property to the decree holder upon acceptance of the consideration money and in order to facilitate such sale would assist the judgment debtor in obtaining the necessary permission. The reciprocal obligation, which could be seen therefrom is that the payment of the sum within the time indicated therein which had in fact been paid by the decree holder. It is also not in dispute that the decree holder continued to pay the monthly rent till the time the judgment debtor with his associates illegally and forcibly took the possession of the tea estate and deprived the decree holder to enjoy the usufructs therefrom. It is manifest from the aforesaid facts that the decree holder all along performed his part of an obligation and none of the terms and conditions would be said to be reciprocal that such performance is dependant upon the performance of the other being so intertwined and / or interrelated that it cannot be separated and / or segregated therefrom. This Court therefore does not find that the objections of the petitioner that terms and conditions are reciprocal in nature and dependent upon the performance of the other. The application is thus dismissed.
|