Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 11886­11887 OF 2016  (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C)NO. 23410­23411 of 2011 )

ROBUST HOTELS PVT. LTD  & ORS.       .... APPELLANTS

  VERSUS

EIH LIMITED & ORS.      .... RESPONDENTS

WITH  CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 11888­11889 OF 2016  

(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C)NO. 17742­17743 of 2012)  EIH LIMITED & ANR.    ...APPELLANTS

VERSUS

BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD. & ORS.        ...RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals along with connected appeals although

emanates from two different suits filed by the same

plaintiff, but the parties being common and sequence

of facts being inter­related, we have heard the

Page 2

2

appeals together and they are being decided by this

common judgment.

Civil Appeal Nos.......Of 2016  (Arising Out of SLP(C)Nos. 23410­11 of 2011 )

3. These appeals have been filed against the

judgment and order dated 26th July, 2011 passed by High

Court of Madras in C.M.A. No. 798 of 2011 and MP No. 1

of 2011 arising out of C.S. No. 257 of 2005 renumbered

as OS No. 12159 of 2010. Brief facts of the case,

necessary to be noted for deciding the appeal are:

The EIH Ltd., Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter

referred to, as EIH) to the appeal is a company which

operates a chain of luxury hotels. The Oberoi Hotels

Private Ltd., Respondent No. 2 owns a brand name

'Oberoi'.

4. On 26.10.1988 EIH entered into 'Technical

Services Agreement' (for short TSA) with one Balaji

Construction (P.) Ltd. Predecessors­in­interest of the

3rd  Respondent Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd. (for

Page 3

3

short, BHEL). The agreement provided that EIH would

provide its technical knowledge and skill required for

operation of hotel, which was being constructed by

BHEL. Another agreement on January 12, 2000 was

entered between BHEL and EIH, where it was recorded

that on the request of BHEL, EIH paid Rs. 9 Crores to

the BHEL by way of financial accommodation which was

used for construction of hotel. By supplemental

agreement dated June 10, 2000, it was recorded that in

total  Rs.  15  Crores  12 Lacs  have  been  received by

BHEL, repayment of which is to be made within 24

months from the date of the principal agreement dated

12th  June, 2000. It appears that amount could not be

repaid hence another agreement was entered between EIH

and BHEL on 4th February, 2002. The agreement recorded

that, it has now been mutually agreed by the BHEL and

EIH that EIH will no longer participate in the hotel

operations hence the Technical Service Agreement will

be terminated. EIH, further stipulated that

No­Objection to BHEL shall be given for selling,

leasing or otherwise transferring the hotel unit to

Page 4

4

any other company whether subsidiary or not, or to any

other company or entity either directly or indirectly

or otherwise. It was further agreed that BHEL shall

refund the amount of Rs. 15.12 Crores alongwith

interest.

5. Relevant Clauses F and G of the Agreement, are as

follows:

F. It is also agreed by and between the parties that

BHEL shall refund the said amount of Rs. 15.12 Crores

as mentioned in clause D above along with interest as

applicable on the above amounts on the terms and

conditions hereinafter contained.

G. It is also agreed by and between the parties that

BICL will execute an irrevocable guarantee in favour

of EIH guaranteeing the payment of the said sum of Rs/

15.12 Crores along with interest as applicable and in

consideration of such guarantee, EIH has agreed to

give BHEL time up to 31st December, 2002 to repay the

Page 5

5

said sum of Rs. 15.12 Corers with interest as

applicable.  

6. On the same day, a Letter of Guarantee was issued

by Balaji Industrial Corporation Ltd. the 4th

Respondent in this appeal, unconditionally, absolutely

and irrevocably guaranteeing the payment of Rs. 15.12

Crores, in the event, BHEL did not paid the subject

amount of Rs. 15.12 Crores within 31st December 2002.

7. The BHEL had obtained financial assistance from

IFCI, the 7th  Respondent and and Tourism Finance

Corporation of India Ltd., the 8th Respondent. EIH came

to know that Tourism Finance Corporation India Ltd.

(for short TFCI)   had issued advertisement inviting

offer for take over (joint venture) sale of hotel

project of BHEL.   The EIH wrote to TFCI on 8th

September, 2002 informing about the agreements entered

between EIH and BHEL and further stating that till sum

of Rs. 15.12 Crores along with interest is not

refunded EIH would have the exclusive right to operate

Page 6

6

the hotel. BHEL on 8th  June,  2004  acknowledged and

confirmed the principal sum of Rs. 15.12 Crores being

outstanding as per books of accounts of March 31st,

2004 with interest. A suit in the High Court of Madras

being C.S. No. 257 of 2005 was filed by EIH against

BHEL and others praying for following reliefs:

“  The plaintiff prays for a Judgment and

Decree for:

(a) Declaration that the Technical Services Agreement dated 26th  October, 1988 and the Project Consultancy Agreement and Royalty Agreement both dated 26th  October, 1988 and the Agreements dated 12th January, 2000, 10th

June, 2000 and 4th  February 2002 are valid, legal and  subsisting and are binding and enforceable on the Defendant No. 3 to 7 and /or its assigns.  

(b) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendant Nos. 3 to 7 whether by itself, its servants, agents and /or assigns or otherwise howsoever from selling, encumbering and/or disposing of in any manner howsoever, the schedule property of the Defendant No. 1 situated at Mount Road, Chennai, in favour of any persons without disclosing and/or recognizing the

Page 7

7

rights of the plaintiff to operate and manage the hotel as provided for under the technical services agreement dated 26th  October, 1988 and the Project Consultancy Agreement and Royalty Agreement both dated 26th  October, 1988 and the agreements dated 12th  January, 2000, 10th  June, 2000 and 4th  February 2002.  

(c) Costs (d) Such further and other reliefs.”

8. An application was also filed by the EIH and

Oberoi Hotels (P) Ltd. who were Plaintiff Nos. 1 and

2, for grant of temporary injunction. The learned

Single Judge had issued temporary injunction on

18.03.2005.

9. After the grant of temporary injunction, it

appears that in the year 2007 proceedings were

initiated by IFCI by issuing notice under Section 13

sub Section (2), Securitisation and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest

(SARFAESI) Act, 2002 demanding amount due from BHEL.

10. Proceeding under Sarfaesi Act, 2002 proceeded and

Page 8

8

the hotel asset of BHEL was transferred in favour of

one Robust Hotels (P.) Ltd.(the appellant in

C.A.Nos.....of 2016 (arising out of SLP © No. 23410­11

of 2011). A transfer deed dated 5th  July, 2007 was

issued by IFCI and TFCI in favour of Robust Hotels (P)

Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Robust Hotels). All

the land, together with erections, plant and machinery

were transferred to Robust Hotels. EIH filed an

application in  November, 2009  for impleadment of

Robust Hotels in C.S. No. 257 of 2005 although the

impleadment was opposed but was allowed by learned

Single Judge vide judgment dated 23rd March, 2010.  The

Appellant Nos.1 to 4 in SLP (C) No. 23410­11 of 2011

were impleaded as Defendant Nos. 8 – 11 in C.S. No.

251 of 2005.  Letters Patent Appeal against the said

judgment was also dismissed by Division Bench on 22nd

October, 2010. The Robust Hotels unsuccessfully

challenged the order of the Division Bench before this

Court by filing an S.L.P., which was also dismissed on

7th January, 2011.

Page 9

9

11. C.S. No. 257 of 2005 was renumbered as  O.S.No.

12159 of 2010.  An IA was filed by EIH being IA No.

22846 of 2010.  By the aforesaid IA No. 22846 of 2010

the plaintiff prayed for an order, restraining Robust

Hotels from having the construction of the hotel unit

or from doing, acting or taking steps contrary to or

in derogation of the rights of the plaintiff under the

Technical Services Agreement and other agreements.

The application was rejected by learned Single Judge

vide  judgment and order dated 9th  March, 2011,

challenging  the  aforesaid order  9th  March,  2011, an

appeal being C.M.A. No. 798 of 2011 was preferred.

The Division Bench of this Court decided the appeal

being C.M.A. NO. 798 of 2011 and M.P. No. 1 of 2011

and issued certain directions  vide  its judgment and

order dated  26th  July, 2011.   C.A.Nos.......of 2016

(arising out of SLP(C) No.23410­11 of 2011) have been

filed against aforesaid Division Bench judgment and

order dated 26th  July, 2011 by the Robust Hotels and

other three defendants.

Page 10

10

C.A.Nos.11888­11889 of 2016  (arising out of SLP (C) No. 17742­43 of 2012

12. These  appeals  have been filed  by EIH Ltd.  and

Oberoi Hotels against judgment and final order dated

13th March, 2012 passed by the High Court of Madras in

O.S.A. No. 419 of 2011 and M.P. No. 1 of 2011. While

noticing the facts in the appeals filed by Robust

Hotels, we in the proceedings paragraphs have noted

the facts which are also relevant for understanding

the issues raised in present appeals. The appellants

EIH and Oberoi Hotels filed a suit, being C.S. No. 164

of 2011 before the High Court of Madras praying for a

declaration that Deed of Transfer dated 5th July, 2007

entered into between IFCI Ltd.  and TFCI on one part

and the Robust Hotels (P.) Ltd. on another part, and

the certificate of sale of immovable property dated 6th

July, 2007 are illegal and null & void and of no

effect and not binding. A perpetual injunction was

also prayed for, restraining the defendants whether by

themselves, their servants, agents or otherwise

Page 11

11

howsoever from purporting to act, to give effect to

or taking any steps in furtherance of the purported

deed of transfer dated   July 5,   2007 and the

certificate of sale of movable and immovable property

also dated July 5, 2007 or from enforcing the same in

any manner whatsoever.

13. It was pleaded that the cause of action for

instituting the suit was the sale of hotel unit at

Mount Road, Chennai by the financial institutions

contrary to the order passed by this High Court dated

18th March, 2005.  The counter affidavit was also filed

in O.A. No. 233 of 2011 in C.S. No. 164 of 2011 by

Robust Hotels.  A Contempt Petition was also filed for

violation of Order dated 18th  March, 2005, passed in

O.A. No. 300 of 2005 in C.S. No. 257 of 2005.

14. O.A.  No. 233  of 2011  in C.S.  No. 164  of 2011

filed by EIH and Oberoi Hotels praying for injunction

was dismissed by learned Single Judge vide Order dated

8th  August 2011.   By the same order, learned Single

Judge also dismissed the Contempt Petition (C)No. 647

of 2011 filed by EIH and Oberoi Hotels. Challenging

Page 12

12

the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 8th

August, 2011 Letters Patent Appeal was filed by EIH

and Oberoi Hotels being O.S.A. No. 419 of 2011.  The

Division Bench by the Order dated 13th  March, 2011

dismissed the appeal, challenging which order   the

C.A. Nos.....of 2016 (arising out of Special Leave

Petition (C) Nos. 17742­43 of 2012) has been filed by

EIH and Oberoi Hotels.

15. We have heard Shri K. K. Venugopal learned senior

counsel and K. V. Vishawanathan learned senior counsel

for Robust Hotels, Shri Jaideep Gupta learned senior

counsel and Shri Siddharth Mitra learned senior

counsel have appeared on behalf of the EIH and Oberoi

Hotels.

16. Shri K. K. Venugopal, in support of his appeal,

contends that the Division Bench of Madras High Court

erred in passing an interim order on 26th  July, 2011

whereas there was no case made out by the EIH and

Another for grant of any interim order.   The Robust

Hotels has purchased the hotel unit under Sarfaesi

Act, 2002 and the property has been conveyed to the

Page 13

13

Robust Hotels free from any encumbrance. The

proceedings under Sarfaesi Act, 2002 cannot be made

subject matter of challenge before a Civil Court.

Section 34 of Sarfaesi Act, 2002 completely oust the

jurisdiction of Civil Court.   He contends that

entitlement to recover the amount of Rs. 15.21 Crores

by EIH if at all was against the Balaji Hotels &

Enterprises Ltd. and Balaji Industrial Corporation

Ltd., for which it was open for EIH to take

appropriate proceedings.   The Robust Hotels having

acquired the assets under Sarfaesi proceeding has no

liability to make any payment to EIH and the order

passed by the Division Bench issuing such direction is

unsustainable. It is submitted that Robust Hotels

cannot be held liable for any breach of Order dated

18.03.2005 and in view of the subject matter, order

dated 18.03.2005 was also hit by Section 34 of

Sarfaesi Act, 2002.  Shri Venugopal further submitted

that C.A.Nos....of 2016 (arising out of Special Leave

Petition (C) Nos. 17742­43 of 2012) filed by EIH

deserved to be dismissed since both learned Single

Page 14

14

Judge and Division Bench have rightly held that the

transfer on 5th  July 2007 made in favour of Robust

Hotels could not have been challenged in C.S. No. 164

of 2011 in view of Section 34 of Sarfaesi Act, 2002.   

17. Shri   Jaideep Gupta and Siddharth Mitra learned

senior counsel, appearing for EIH have vehemently

opposed the submissions raised by Shri K. K.

Venugopal.  It is contended by learned senior counsel

appearing for EIH and Another that the order passed by

the Division Bench on 26th July, 2011 is perfectly in

accordance with law, which need no interference by

this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article

136 of the Constitution.  It is submitted that interim

order has been issued by Division Bench   of Madras

High Court being fully satisfied on prima facie  case

of the EIH Ltd., the balance of convenience and

irreparable loss being in favour of the plaintiffs.

It is contended that injunction order dated 18th

March, 2005  issued in C.S. No. 257 of 2005,  has been

violated by the financial institutions.   Any action

taken, in breach of interim injunction order, is to be

Page 15

15

set aside and no party can be allowed to take benefit

of its wrong committed in breach of an order of the

Court. It is contended that financial institutions and

erstwhile owners of the hotel unit were made aware of

the interim injunction order dated 18th March, 2005 and

despite the said injunction   order, they transferred

the unit without taking into consideration the right

of the EIH flowing from the contracts entered between

EIH and erstwhile owner as noted above.

18. One of the conditions of last agreement dated 4th

February, 2002 was to make payment of an amount of Rs.

15.21 Crores by erstwhile owner before transferring

the right in the hotel unit including right to run the

hotel in favour of any entity.  

19. The Order passed by Division Bench dated 26th

July, 2011 does complete justice between parties, and

Division Bench has exercised its discretionary

jurisdiction in granting the relief which need no

interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction

under Article 136 of the Constitution.

20. Coming to appeal, filed by EIH against the Order

Page 16

16

dated 13th  March, 2012, it is contended that all

actions in breach of an interim injunction have to be

set aside and the Court is fully competent to restore

status quo ante.  It is contended that in event where

an action is taken in disregard of any interim

injunction passed by a court, the question of  prima

facie   case, balances of convenience and irreparable

loss have not to be looked into and the Court has to

undo the wrong done in breach of court's order.

21. It is submitted that Section 34 of the Sarfaesi

Act, 2002 does not protect the Robust Hotels in facts

of the present case.  It is submitted that the appeal

filed by the EIH, deserved to be allowed setting aside

all actions taken in breach of the injunction order

18th March, 2005.

22. Learned senior counsel for both the parties have

also relied on various judgments of this Court in

support of their respective submissions, which shall

be referred to while considering their submissions in

detail.  

23. First, we take up the appeal of Robust Hotels,

Page 17

17

the appeal has been filed against an interim order

passed by the High Court, disposing of the CMA No. 798

of 2011.  

24. The interim directions issued by Division Bench

are in following three parts:

“(i). This Court without prejudice, directs the 1st  and 2nd  respondents / erstwhile owners / BH and EL and another or the 8th  respondent / the present  owner  /  Robust  Hotels  Private Limited to deposit a sum of Rs. 15.12 Crores into the credit of O.S. No. 12159 of 2010 on or before 31st  August 2011.  

(ii). After such deposit has been made the  learned  trial  judge  shall  dispose the case within a period of three months on merits, without being influenced by this Court's findings.

(iii) If the Condition of deposit as ordered by this Court, is not complied with by either of the parties, the interim injunction, restraining the 8th

respondent/Robust Hotels Private Limited, from acting or taking any steps contrary to and/or in derogation of the rights of the petitioners under the technical service agreement, the projects consultancy agreement and the Royalty agreement all dated October 26, 1988, entered into between the petitioners /EIH and another and the respondents 1 and 2/B.H. and EL and

Page 18

18

BICL will come into effect from 01.09.2011.”

25. As noted above the agreement dated 4th  February,

2002 Annexure P. 4 between Balaji Hotels Enterprises

Ltd. and its successor Balaji Industrial Corporation

Ltd. with EIH contemplated that EIH will no longer

participate in the hotel unit and Technical Service

Agreement will be terminated and BHEL shall refund the

amount of Rs. 15.12 Crores for which time was extended

by EIH to BHEL by 31st December 2002.  When the EIH

came to know that Tourism Finance Corporation India

Ltd. has issued an advertisement for inviting offers

for take over / joint venture, sale of hotel brought

at Mount Road, Chennai it immediately wrote to Tourism

Finance Corporation India Ltd. informing about its

agreement with BHEL.   The EIH has also informed in

writing vide letter dated 15th July, 2004 Annexure P.

8 to the Asset Reconstruction Company   (India) Ltd.

about their advance of Rs. 15.12 Crores which it had

made to BHEL.

26. Subsequently, suit, namely, C.S. No. 257 of 2005

Page 19

19

was filed by the EIH Ltd. and Oberoi Hotels, plaint of

which suit has been brought on record by annexure

P. 14.

27. Interim injunction was issued by the learned

Single Judge of the High Court in the aforesaid suit

to the following effect:  

“That 1. Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Limited, 2. ICICI Bank Limited 3. IFCI Limited 4. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Limited, and 5. Anand Rathi Securities Private Limited, the respondents 3 to 7 herein, whether by itself, its servants, agents and/or assigns or otherwise howsoever be and are hereby restrained by an order of interim injunction until further orders of this court from dealing with, disposing of, selling and/or encumbering in any manner howsoever the hotel unit of the Respondent No. 1 situated at Mount Road, Chennai in favour of any person without disclosing the rights of the Applicants to operate and manage the hotel in terms of the Technical Services, Project  Consultancy & Royalty Agreement dated 26th October 1988 and the Agreements dated 12th

January 2000, 10th   June, 2000 and 4th

February 2002.”

28. The essence of interim injunction issued by the

Page 20

20

Court was that Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 of that suit

were restrained by an order of injunction from dealing

with, disposing of, selling and/or encumbering in any

manner howsoever the hotel unit of Balaji Hotels &

Enterprises Ltd.(BHEL), in favour of any person

without disclosing the rights of the applicants to

operate and manage the hotel in terms of the Technical

Services, Project  Consultancy & Royalty Agreement

dated 26th October, 1988 and the Agreements dated 12th

January 2000, 10th  June, 2000 and 4th  February, 2002.

29. Thus, the injunction ordained that while dealing

with the hotel unit the rights of the applicant be

disclosed.   The subsequent facts, as noted above

indicate that even after the aforesaid injunction the

IFCI Ltd. and Tourism Finance Corporation of India

Ltd. by deed of transfer dated 5th  July, 2007

transferred the hotel unit to Robust Hotels without

disclosing the rights of the applicant as provided by

the Agreement mentioned therein. The Agreement dated

4th  July, 2002 clearly provided that the BHEL was

Page 21

21

required to repay the amount of Rs. 15.21 Crores to

the EIH by 31st  December, 2002 whereafter, EIH had

nothing to do with the operation of the hotel.  

19. Learned senior counsel for the appellants have

placed much reliance on the Section 34 of the Sarfaesi

Act, 2002.   Section 34 of the Sarfaesi Act, 2002

provided as follows:

"34. Civil court not to have jurisdiction.­ No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993)."

30. The scope  and  ambit of Section 34  of Sarfaesi

Act, 2002 have been considered by this Court in

several cases.  It is sufficient to refer the judgment

of this Court in Nahar Industrial Enterprises Limited

Versus Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation (2009)

8 SCC 646.  This Court held that the jurisdiction of

Page 22

22

the Civil Court is plenary in nature,  unless the same

is ousted, expressly or by necessary implication, it

will have jurisdiction to try all types of suits.

31. Following was laid down in para 110 ­111:­

"110. It must be remembered that the jurisdiction of a civil court is plenary in nature. Unless the same is ousted, expressly or by necessary implication, it will have jurisdiction to try all types of suits.  

111. In Dhulabhai v. State of M.P., this

Court opined: (AIR pp. 89­90, para 32)

“32. … The result of this inquiry into the diverse views expressed in this Court may be stated as follows:

(2) Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil court.

Where there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive. In the latter case it is necessary to see if the statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for the determination of the

Page 23

23

right or liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the Tribunals so constituted, and whether remedies normally associated with actions in civil courts are prescribed by the said statute or not.”

32. A perusal of Section 34 indicates that there is

express bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to the

following effect:

“(i) Any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter in which Debt Recovery Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine. (ii) Further, no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action   taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act   or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.”

Thus the bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court has

to correlate to the above mentioned conditions. For

purposes of this case, we are of the view that this

Court need not express any opinion as to whether suits

filed by EIH were barred by Section 34 or not, since

the issue are yet to be decided on merits and the

Page 24

24

appeal by Robust Hotels have been filed only against

an interim order.

33. The submissions, which have been much pressed by

learned senior counsel for EIH is on the effect and

consequence of acting in breach of injunction order

dated 18th  March, 2005. At the time, when injunction

order was issued by learned Single Judge, Robust

Hotels was not in picture, however, subsequently, it

has also been impleaded in the suit and the challenge

to the impleadment of Robust Hotels has failed up to

this Court. There can be no doubt that IFCI and

Tourist Finance Corporation who had executed the deed

of transfer in favour of Robust Hotels and were

parties to suit, were bound by the said interim

injunction.   The interim injunction was only to the

effect that the liability of BHEL to repay the amount

of Rs. 15.21 Crores up to particular date was to be

communicated and recognised to any subsequent

purchaser.  The recognition of right of the plaintiff

of receiving of Rs. 15.21 Crores was with the object

Page 25

25

that anyone purchasing the hotel unit should be aware

of the liability and said liability should also be

adverted and taken care of.   

34. Learned senior counsel for the EIH has referred

to and relied on the judgment of the Full Bench of

Madras High Court in Century Flour Mills Ltd. Versus

S. Suppiah and Others AIR 1975 Madras 270 and another

judgment reported in  1985 of All England Report 211

Clarke and Others Versus Chadburn and Others, for the

proposition that any action taken in disobedience or

disregard in injunction order, becomes void & illegal.

35. Madras High Court in  Century Flour Mills Ltd.

stated following in para 9:  

“In our opinion, the inherent powers of this court under Section 151 C.P.C. are wide and are not subject to any limitation.   Where in violation of a stay order or injunction against a party, something has been done in disobedience, it will be the duty of the court as a policy to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrong doing.   In our view, the inherent power will not only be available in such a case, but it is bound to be exercised in that manner in the interests of justice.   Even apart from Section 151, we should observe

Page 26

26

that as a matter of judicial policy, the court should guard against itself being stultified in circumstances like this by holding that it is powerless to undo a wrong done in disobedience of the court's orders.   But in this case it is not necessary to go to that extent as we hold that the power is available under Section 151, C.P.C.”

36. Judgment of Madras High Court in  Century Flour

Mills Ltd. Versus S. Suppiah and Others  and   Clarke

and Others Versus Chadburn and Others (Supra) had been

relied and approved by this Court in Delhi Development

Authority Versus Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and

Another (1996) 4 SCC 622.

37. Another judgment relied upon is  Anita

International Versus Tungabadra Sugar Works Mazdoor

Sangh and Others (2016) 9 SCC 44.   In the aforesaid

case, in a Company Petition, filed in the Madras High

Court for winding up of Deve Sugars Ltd., an order of

winding up was passed.   An Official Liquidator was

directed to take possession of the property of the

company. State Bank of Mysore had extended some loan

to the  Deve  Sugar  Ltd. and  on  default  having  been

committed, an O.A. was filed before the Debt Recovery

Page 27

27

Tribunal by the Bank for the recovery of the amount.

The Recovery Certificate was issued for a sum of Rs.

8.40 Crores.   State Bank of Mysore filed a Company

Application in the pending Company Petition before the

High Court of Madras, seeking leave to proceed before

Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT),  Bangalore.

38. The High Court, while granting the leave to the

State Bank of Mysore passed an order that no coercive

steps are to be taken against the assets of the

company during or after concluding all the proceeding

before the tribunal. The order passed by Madras High

Court has been extracted in para 3 of the judgment

which is to the following effect:  

“(3) The Company Court in the High Court of Madras, while granting leave to State Bank of Mysore, passed the following order on 10..2000 (while disposing of Company Applications Nos. 1251­53 of 1999):

This company application, praying to this Court to grant leave to the applicant Bank to proceed and prosecute further OA No. 1300 of 1997 filed by them against the respondent Company in the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Bangalore.

Page 28

28

Company applications coming on this day before this Court for hearing in the presence of Mr. R. Varichandran, Advocate for the applicant, herein and the Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras, the respondent, appearing in person, and upon reading the Judge's summons and affidavit and report of the Official Liquidator filed herein, the court made the following orders:

Leave is granted subject to   the condition that the Official Liquidator is impleaded and no coercive steps are taken against the assets of the Company during or after the conclusion of the proceedings before the Tribunal.”

39.  A perusal of the above order reveals that leave

was granted subject to the condition that the Official

Liquidator was impleaded before DRT, Bangalore, and

further that no coercive steps would be taken against

the assets of the Company Deve Sugars Ltd., during or

after the conclusion of proceedings before DRT,

Bangalore.

40. It appears that in the recovery proceedings, the

assets were auctioned and Anita Internationals were

the auction purchaser. The issue was raised before the

Page 29

29

High Court that in view of the order of Madras High

Court   dated 10.03.2000, proceedings for recovery as

well as confirmation of the auction were invalid. It

was also contended before the High Court that the

Company Court had no jurisdiction, the arguments

raised before the Court that Company Court has no

jurisdiction and it was a Debt Recovery Tribunal which

has exclusive jurisdiction, was rejected by this

Court.  It is useful to refer para 49 and 51 of the

judgment which is to the following effect:   

“(49.) In order to support their claim, it was submitted on behalf of the appellants that jurisdiction in matters of recovery agitated by banks and financial institutions under the RDB Act has been repeatedly expounded by this Court.   The Debts Recovery Tribunals concerned, before whom recovery proceedings are initiated, have exclusive jurisdiction in the matter. It was also pointed out that this Court has clearly declared that even the jurisdiction of Recovery Officers in matters of execution of recovery certificates was likewise exclusive.   It was the pointed contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that in matter wherein banks and financial institutions approach a Debts Recovery Tribunal, which on due consideration issues a

Page 30

30

recovery certificate, the same can be executed only through a Recovery Officer.   It was submitted that a Company Court has no jurisdiction in the matter.   The learned counsel for the appellants substantiated the above assertion on the basis of the decisions rendered by this Court in Allahabad Bank, M.V. Janardhan Reddy, Andhra Bank, Rajasthan State Financial Corpn. and Official Liquidator cases.

(51.) It is not possible for us to accept the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants. In this behalf it would be relevant to mention that in M.V. Janardhan Reddy case the Company Court by an order dated 13.8.1999 required that its permission should be obtained before the Recovery Officer finalised the sale. Thereafter, the Company Court by an order dated 25.03.2005 directed that sale by the Recovery Officer was subject to confirmation by the Company Court.  In the above sequence of facts, this Court clearly held that the condition imposed by the Company Court could not be violated by the Recovery Officer.   It was concluded that the sale made by the Recovery Officer in violation of the orders passed by the Company Court was without the authority of law, the same was accordingly set aside.  The explanation tendered by the learned Senior Counsel representing the appellants was that even in the  above judgment, this Court had not disturbed the exclusive jurisdiction of a Recovery Officer in executing the recovery certificate.   In our

Page 31

31

considered view, the above contention is immaterial to the issue under consideration. The issue under consideration is whether or not an order passed by the   Company Court(in the present case the order dated 10.3.2000) was binding on the Recovery Officer?   And, whether the proceedings conducted by the Recovery Officer in violation of the above order were sustainable in law? We have no hesitation in concluding that in M.V. Janardhan Reddy case, an order passed by the Company Court was held to be binding on the Recovery Officer.  Based on exactly the same consideration, we are of the view that the acceptance of the bid of Anita International by the Recovery officer on 11.8.2005 and the confirmation of the sale in its favour on 12.9.2005 were clearly impermissible and therefore, deserve to be set aside.”  

41. This Court further held that it is not open

either a party to the  lis  or to any third party to

determine at their own that an order passed by a Court

is valid or void.   A party to the  lis  or the third

party  who  considers  an  order  passed  by a  court as

voidable or  non est, must approach the court of

competent jurisdiction to have the said order set­

aside on such grounds, as may be available in law.

Page 32

32

This Court held that the order of the Company Court of

Madras High Court was to be complied with and sale

held in violation of the said order was to be set

aside.

42. The entitlement of EIH to receive Rs. 15.21

Crores, which was the condition of the agreement dated

4th  February, 2002 was to be reflected in any future

transaction by virtue of the injunction order dated

18th  March, 2005 dealing with the property, has

rightly been taken note by the Division Bench of the

High Court and we do not find any error in the

directions issued by Division Bench of the High Court,

directing 1st and 2nd Respondent, i.e., erstwhile owner

and 8th Respondent Robust Hotels to deposit the sum of

Rs. 15.12 Crores.  

43. We, however, are of the view that it was not

necessary for the High Court to presume that the

conditions of deposit, as ordered by the court shall

not be complied with. Orders of the court are issued

to be complied with and a court does not lack power to

ensure the compliance by appropriate proceedings.

Page 33

33

Thus, further directions of the High Court that 'if

the condition of deposit as ordered by this court has

not complied with by either of the parties....',

interim injunction, restraining the 8th Respondent' was

uncalled for.   The interim order passed by the High

Court, directing for deposit of Rs. 15.12 Crores has

done substantial justice between parties, which need

no interference by this Court in exercise of its

jurisdiction under Article 136. We, however, are of

the view that the directions issued by the Division

Bench in para 38 need to be affirmed only to the

following extent:

“(a) (i). This Court without prejudice, directs the 1st  and 2nd  respondents / erstwhile owners / BH and EL and another or the 8th  respondent / the present owner / Robust Hotels Private Limited to deposit a sum of Rs. 15.12 Crores into the credit of O.S. No. 12159 of 2010 on or before 31st  August 2011.”  

44. It goes without saying that the trial judge has

to expeditiously proceed to decide the suit. The

deposit was to be made under the order of the High

Court till 31st  August, 2011. This Court passed an

Page 34

34

interim order on 29th  August, 2011 due to which no

deposit was made, we thus extend the time for deposit

of the amount till 31st  January, 2017. The appeals

filed by Robust are disposed of as above.  

45. Now, we come to appeals filed by EIH.  EIH filed

an appeal against the order of the Division Bench

dated 13th  March, 2012 by which order, the Division

Bench has dismissed the appeal against the order dated

8th August, 2011, passed by the learned Single Judge.

Order dated 8th August, 2011 was passed in O.A. No. 233

of 2011 by which application, the plaintiff has prayed

for interim injunction, restraining the defendants

from purporting to act or to give effect to or taking

any step in furtherance of the purported deed of

transfer dated 5th  July, 2007 and the certificate of

sale of movable and immovable property dated 5th July,

2007 or from enforcing the same in any manner

whatsoever pending the suit.  

46. The learned Single Judge passed an order,

refusing the interim order as prayed for in O.A. No.

233 of 2011. The Division Bench, while dismissing the

Page 35

35

appeal made following observations in Para 62 at page

50:  

“62. The maintainability of suits, which are pending on the file of the City Civil Court as well as on the file of this Court in C.S. No. 164 of 2011, can be adjudicated in the course of trial and this Court finds some force in the submission made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants that the said findings may definitely prejudice their case. Hence, this Court expunge the observations made by the learned Judge with regard to the maintainability of the suit in O. S. No. 12159 of 2010, pending on the file the III Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and C.S. No. 164 of 2011 pending on the file of this Court.”

47. The Division Bench as well as learned Single

Judge has already noted that hotel has already

commenced its operation and contracts have been made

with third parties for the operation of the hotel and

bookings are also being taken from the customers. We

have already noticed the directions issued by Division

Bench, directing the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 8 to the

suit C.S. No. 257 of 2005 to deposit an amount of Rs.

15.21 Crores which order had done substantial justice

Page 36

36

between parties. Taking into consideration the overall

circumstances, specially when issues raised in C.S.

No. 164 of 2011 are yet to be adjudicated, the orders

passed by both learned Single Judge and Division

Bench, refusing to grant interim injunction in view of

the facts as noted above cannot be faulted.  

48. In result, the appeals of Robust Hotels & ors.

are disposed of by modifying the order of the Division

Bench as above. The appeals of EIH Ltd. and ors. are

dismissed.

....................J. (PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)

...................J. (ASHOK BHUSHAN)

NEW DELHI: DECEMBER 07,  2016