REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 945-946 OF 2020 (Arising from SLP(C) Nos. 9971-72/2018)

Pawan Kumar Arya and others …Appellants

Versus

Ravi Kumar Arya and others …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

M.R. SHAH, J.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order

dated 21.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal

(L) No. 447 of 2017 with Notice of Motion (L) No. 2541 of 2017 in Appeal (L)

No. 447 of 2017, by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed

the said intra court appeal preferred by the appellants herein – original plaintiffs

and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge

dated  30.11.2017  dismissing  the  execution  petition,  the  original  plaintiffs  –

decree holders have preferred the present appeals.

2. The  dispute  is  between  the  appellants  herein  –  original  plaintiffs

(hereinafter  referred to  as  ‘PA Group’)  and respondent  nos.  1  to  6 herein –

original defendant nos. 1 to 6 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RA Group’) and also

between original defendant no. 10 – Omkar Realtors and Developers Private

1

Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Omkar Builders’).  The dispute was with

respect to the asset of Kash Foods Private Limited admeasuring 4134 square

meters plot at Worli, Mumbai.

2.1 That the appellants herein – original plaintiffs filed a Suit (L) No. 194 of

2015  against  the  respondents  herein/original  defendants  seeking  the  relief

against the transfer of the property of Kash Foods Private Limited in favour of

respondent no.10 herein – defendant no. 10 - Omkar Developers.  As observed

hereinabove, the original plaintiffs Pawan Kumar Arya and others belong to PA

Group and original defendant nos. 1 to 6 belong to RA Group, the brother of

Pawan Kumar Arya.   According to  the original  plaintiffs,  original  defendant

no.7 – M.P. Recycling Company was jointly held by PA Group and RA Group

with each credit or holding 50% of its shareholding.  That M.P. Recycling held

25% of shareholding in Kash Foods.  That Kash Foods owned a plot of land at

Worli admeasuring about 4134.27 sq, meters.  That 25% of the shareholding in

Kash Foods was purchased by M.P. Recycling and the remaining 75% of the

shareholding  in  Kash  Foods  was  bought  by  RA Group  in  2011  in  their

individual capacities.   

2.2 That by conveyance deed dated 22.12.2012, a portion of  the assets of

Kash  Foods  was  transferred  to  original  defendant  nos.  3  &  4  that  are  the

members of the RA Group.  A development agreement was executed between

Omkar Builders – original defendant no.10, Kash Foods, original defendant no.

8 and defendant nos. 3 and 4, which was subjected to challenge by the plaintiffs

2

in the suit.  According to the original plaintiffs, original defendant nos. 1 to 6 in

violation of the Right of First refusal clause in favour of M.P. Recycling to buy

shares of Kash Foods as contained in the Articles of Association of Kash Foods,

surreptitiously  and  behind  the  back  of  the  plaintiffs  bought  75% outsiders’

shareholding  in  the  names  of  defendant  no.1’s  family.   According  to  the

plaintiffs,  defendant  nos.  1  to  6  entered  into  a  purported  Development

Agreement dated 10.04.2013 with Omkar Builders, a third party developer, to

develop the Worli property behind the back of M.P. Recycling and the plaintiffs.

According to the plaintiffs, under the purported Development Agreement with

Omkar Builders, defendant nos. 1 to 6 and Kash Foods received Rs. 25 crores

from Omkar Builders and an additional Rs. 20 crores as security.  That as per

the case of the plaintiffs, defendant nos. 1 to 6 and Kash Foods also received

79,000 sq. ft. carpet area, i.e., 15 flats and 72 car parking spaces from Omkar

Builders under the Development Agreement.   According to the plaintiffs,  15

agreements for sale were registered and executed in favour of defendant nos. 1

to 6 and Kash Foods.   

2.3 According  to  the  plaintiffs,  defendant  nos.  1  to  6  did  not  give  any

rights/benefits  in  the  said  consideration/carpet  area  received  from  Omkar

Builders either to the plaintiffs and/or to M.P. Recycling.  The aforesaid led to

the filing of  the suit  by the plaintiffs  against  original  defendant nos.  1  to  6

seeking a  50-50 division  of  the  benefits  received by Kash  Foods under  the

Development Agreement with Omkar Builders.  That during the pendency of

3

the suit, the suit came to be settled and the aforesaid suit came to be disposed of

in  accordance  of  the  consent  terms.  As  per  the  consent  terms,  out  of  15

apartments that were to come up on the Worli land, 8 apartments admeasuring

27000 sq. meters in all were to fall to the share of the plaintiffs – PA Group and

7 apartments with a total area of 52000 sq. meters were to go to defendant nos.

1 to 6 – RA Group.  According to the plaintiffs, as per the consent terms, the

letter of allotment of their 8 apartments was liable to be executed by defendant

no.  10  –  Omkar  Builders  and  the  same was  liable  to  be  counter-signed  by

defendant nos. 1 to 6 – RA Group.  According to the plaintiffs, defendant no. 10

– Omkar Builders had in accordance with the consent terms executed the letter

of allotment in ‘Annexure E’ in respect of the 8 apartments, but defendant nos. 1

to  6  refused  to  abide  by  the  consent  terms  and  counter-sign  the  letter  of

allotment as per ‘Annexure E’.   

2.4 Therefore, in view of the refusal on the part of defendant nos. 1 to 6 – RA

Group to abide by the consent terms and counter-sign the letter of allotment as

per ‘Annexure E’, the plaintiffs initiated the proceedings under Order 21 Rule

34 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the execution of the consent decree viz.

for execution of the document at ‘Annexure E’ to decree dated 14.08.2015, by

defendant nos.  1 to 6 – RA Group and defendant no.  10 – Omkar Builders

jointly and/or severally.  The execution application came to be rejected by the

learned Single Judge by the judgment and order dated 30.11.2017 by holding

that neither Omkar Builders nor defendant nos. 1 to 6 – RA Group could have

4

been directed at this stage to execute ‘Annexure E’ to the consent terms nor

could the RA Group  be restrained from dealing with the properties that form

the  subject  matter  of  Kash  Foods  property.   The  learned  Single  Judge  also

observed that unless and until the supplementary consent terms are entered into

between the parties, there is no obligation on the part of defendant nos. 1 to 6 to

execute the letter of allotment in the form of ‘Annexure E’.  

2.5 Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the Chamber Summons/Execution

Petition, the appellants herein preferred appeal before the Division Bench.  That

by the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has

dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by

the  learned  Single  Judge  dated  30.11.2017  dismissing  the  chamber

summons/execution petition.  That while dismissing the chamber summons, the

learned Single Judge as well as while dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench

has observed that no direction against the RA Group to execute the letter of

allotment in the form of ‘Annexure E’ can be issued on the basis of clause 28 of

the consent terms relied upon by the plaintiffs as there is nothing in clause 28 of

the consent terms that  casts an obligation upon defendant nos.  1 to 6 – RA

Group to execute the letter of allotment in the form of ‘Annexure E’.

2.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order

passed  by  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  dismissing  the  appeal,

confirming  the  judgment  and  order  passed  by  the  learned  Single  Judge

dismissing the chamber summons/execution petition and refusing to issue any

5

direction against  defendant  nos.  1 to 6 – RA Group to execute the letter  of

allotment in the form of ‘Annexure E’ with respect to 8 apartments, the original

plaintiffs have preferred the present appeals.

3. Dr.  Abhishek  Manu  Singhvi  and  Shri  Dhruv  Mehta,  learned  Senior

Advocates have appeared on behalf of the appellants herein – original plaintiffs

and Shri Shyam Divan and Shri Haresh Jagtiani, learned Senior Advocates have

appeared on behalf of the respondents herein – original defendants.  

3.1 Dr.  Singhvi,  learned  Senior  Advocate  appearing  on  behalf  of  the

appellants – original plaintiffs has vehemently submitted that in the facts and

circumstances of the case, both, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division

Bench have materially erred in dismissing the notice of motion and not issuing

the directions as prayed against original defendant nos. 1 to 6 and defendant no.

10.  It is vehemently submitted that by not issuing the directions as prayed in the

notice of motion, both, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench

have virtually nullified the consent terms and the consent decree.

3.2 It  is  further  submitted  by  the  learned  Senior  Advocate  appearing  on

behalf of the appellants – original plaintiffs that the absurd consequence of the

impugned order is that though in terms of the consent terms/decree flats were

allotted to both, the appellants and respondent nos. 1 to 6, the appellants have

got nothing under the consent decree till date.  It is submitted that on the other

hand respondent nos. 1 to 6 have got not only 7 flats of double the area of the

PA Kash Foods Property, but also Rs. 45 crores and are enjoying the above since

6

about 2015 by mortgaging and dealing with their flats by raising large finances.

It is submitted that as held by this Court in the case of Manish Mohan Sharma

and  others  v.  Ram  Bahadur  Thakur  Ltd.  and  others  (2006)  4  SCC  416

(paragraphs 31 & 32), the effort of the executing court must be to see that the

parties  are  given  the  fruits  of  the  decree.   It  is  submitted  that  it  is  further

observed in the said decision that the mandate is reinforced when it is a consent

decree and doubly reinforced when the consent decree is a family settlement.  It

is  submitted  that  it  is  further  observed in  the  aforesaid decision that  family

settlements are governed by a special equity and are to be enforced if honestly

made.   Reliance is also placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of

Kale and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others (1976) 3 SCC

119.

3.3 It  is  further  submitted  by  the  learned  Senior  Advocate  appearing  on

behalf of the appellants – original plaintiffs that the net result as of today is that

both the consent terms and the consent decree in effect result  in a zero-sum

game  with  no  transaction  accruing  to  the  benefit  of  the  appellants.   It  is

submitted that if that was so, there was no purpose to enter into the consent

terms at all.

3.4 It  is  further  submitted  by  the  learned  Senior  Advocate  appearing  on

behalf of the appellants – original plaintiffs that there is no basis, in any event,

for  the  Division  Bench  to  ignore  the  clear  recognition  of  the  appellants’

entitlement under the consent terms/consent decree.

7

3.5 Now so far as the observations made by the learned Single Judge on the

necessity to have supplementary consent terms, before the other terms of the

consent decree are acted upon is concerned, it is vehemently submitted that the

same is erroneous.  It is submitted that the reliance placed upon clauses 13, 22,

23  and  27  of  the  consent  terms  by  the  learned  Single  Judge  is  absolutely

misplaced.  It is submitted that there is not a single clause in the entire consent

terms and/or the consent decree which either expressly or impliedly postpones

or in any manner makes the appellants’ entitlement to get ‘Annexure E’ letter

contingent upon respondent nos. 1 to 6’s specious plea of simultaneity with the

supplementary consent terms.

3.6 It  is  further  submitted  by  the  learned  Senior  Advocate  appearing  on

behalf of the appellants – original plaintiffs that the learned Single Judge ought

not to have read an implied term into the consent decree and/or consent terms

which was never intended by the parties and thereby making the issuance of

‘Annexure E’ letter to the appellants conditional and/or subject to the happening

of an event, i.e., filing of the supplementary consent terms, when no such clause

finds place either in the consent decree or consent terms.  It is submitted that it

is a settled law that an implied term can be read into a contract only when it is

so obvious that the parties intended something but inadvertently the same was

left out.  In support, reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in the case

of Satya Jain and others v. Anis Ahmed Rushdie and others (2013) 8 SCC 131

(paragraphs 32 to 35).

8

3.7 It  is  further  submitted  by  the  learned  Senior  Advocate  appearing  on

behalf  of  the  appellants  –  original  plaintiffs  that  as  such  there  is  no  such

contingency supplied anywhere in the consent terms and/or consent decree and

in fact clause 28 of the consent terms read with paragraphs 2, 3 and 6 of the

consent decree is an antithesis of the finding that ‘Annexure E’ is contingent

upon the supplementary consent terms.  It is submitted that ‘Annexure E’ shall

not depend upon the supplementary consent terms to be executed/entered into as

observed by the learned Single Judge.   It  is  submitted that  clause 28 of  the

consent  terms  read  with  paragraphs  2,  3  and  6  of  the  consent  decree

unambiguously and unequivocally makes it  clear  that respondent no.  10 and

respondent nos. 1 to 6 were to provide ‘Annexure E’ letter immediately and not

at the RA Group’s convenience and/or at a later date, as per the whims and

fancies of respondent nos. 1 to 6 or contingent upon the supplementary consent

terms.

3.8 It  is  further  submitted  by  the  learned  Senior  Advocate  appearing  on

behalf  of  the  appellants  –  original  plaintiffs  that  none of  the  clauses  in  the

consent terms and/or the consent decree provides the supplementary consent

terms contingent upon ‘Annexure E’ letter and/or vice versa.  It is submitted that

as held by this Court in the case of Saradamani Kandappan v. S. Rajalakshmi

and others (2011) 12 SCC 18,  the order of performance should be expressly

stated or provided, i.e., the agreement should say that only after performance of

obligations of the vendors, the purchaser will have to perform her obligations.

9

3.9 It  is  further  submitted  by  the  learned  Senior  Advocate  appearing  on

behalf of the appellants – original plaintiffs that even otherwise because of the

total non-cooperation on the part of respondent nos. 1 to 6 and with a malafide

intention  respondent  nos.  1  to  6  are  not  co-operating  in  execution  of

supplementary consent terms.  It is submitted that out of the four items listed for

valuation at clause D9(d) of the consent terms, item no. (a) is a company in

which both brothers hold 25.5% of the shareholding each and the balance 49%

is  held  by a  third  party;  item no.  (b)  and (c)  is  a  company and a  property

respectively which are held 50:50 by both brothers; item no. (d) is the PA Kash

Foods Property which was to be valued for the purposes of adjustment.  It is

submitted that the valuation was not done despite numerous reminders by the

appellants.  It is submitted that several without prejudice emails were addressed

to respondent nos. 1 to 6 calling upon them to execute and agree to the draft of

the supplementary consent terms, which has not been done till date.

3.10 It  is  further  submitted  by  the  learned  Senior  Advocate  appearing  on

behalf of the appellants – original plaintiffs that as such the plaintiffs entered

into the consent terms to buy peace and to resolve the overall family dispute

between the parties.  It is submitted that as held by this Court in the case of

Hari Shankar Singhania and others v. Gaur Hari Singhania and others (2006) 4

SCC 658 (para 42 and 43), a family settlement is treated differently from any

other formal commercial settlement as such settlement in the eye of the law

ensures peace and goodwill among the family members.  It is submitted that it is

10

further observed in the said decision that even technicalities of limitation, etc.

should not  be put  at  risk of  the implementation of  a settlement drawn by a

family, which is essential for maintaining peace and harmony in a family.

3.11 Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid decisions

of this Court, it is prayed to allow the present appeals.

4. Shri  Shyam  Divan,  learned  Senior  Advocate  appearing  on  behalf  of

respondent nos. 1 to 6 and 8 & 9 has vehemently submitted that as such the

notice  of  motion/execution  proceedings  by  the  appellants  herein  itself  was

premature  and  was  for  execution  of  only  part  of  the  consent  decree  dated

14.08.2015 and therefore the same was not maintainable at all being premature

execution proceedings.

4.1 It  is  further  submitted  that  the  appellants  are  seeking  to  execute  a

particular  clause  of  consent  terms  dated  14.08.2015,  which  under  the  said

consent  terms  itself  is  required  to  be  implemented  after  the  parties  thereto

arrived at a supplementary agreement which till date has not been arrived at or

entered into.   It  is  submitted that  therefore  the  learned Single  Judge rightly

dismissed the said execution petition.  It is submitted that by these proceedings

the  appellants  are  seeking  to  execute  a  part  of  the  consent  decree  without

entering into the supplementary agreement.

4.2 It is further submitted that the orders interpreting the consent decree are

per se reasonable and based on sound reasoning taking into account all relevant

11

facts and material and submissions advanced by both the sides and therefore

does not warrant any interference by this Court.

4.3 It is further submitted that as such the consent terms went well beyond

the dispute  raised in  Civil  Suit  No.  191/2015 and seeks to  comprehensively

resolve  all  disputes  such  as  those  pertaining  to  the  factories  owned  by  the

parties, namely, AISCO, IMTC, Orbit Arya Commercial Premises and overall

family settlement.

4.4 It is further submitted that parties entered into the consent terms and the

consideration  for  the  RA  Group  agreeing  to  allot  8  flats  (‘Annexure  A’

properties) in favour of the PA Group was that the RA Group would be rid of the

minority status of  AISCO – one of  the group companies of  both the groups

wherein RA Group was in a minority and whose rights were being oppressed in

the said company and the disputes qua all the other group companies would also

achieve quietus.  It is submitted that in fact the 8 flats (‘Annexure A’ properties)

were  as  such  belonged  to  RA Group.   It  is  submitted  that  by  the  present

execution proceedings the appellants want to execute that part of the consent

decree which favours them – allotment of 8 flats (‘Annexure A’ properties), but

without  in  any  manner  complying  with  their  obligations  under  the  consent

terms/consent  decree,  i.e.,  the execution  of  supplementary consent  terms,  as

defined in clause 13.  It is submitted that the appellants cannot be permitted to

get the consent decree executed in part and which is in their favour and without

in any way complying with their obligations under the consent decree.

12

4.5 It is further submitted that neither under the consent terms nor under the

consent decree,  there is an obligation on the part  of  the RA Group to issue

‘Annexure E’ forthwith upon signing of the consent terms.  It is submitted that if

the submission on behalf of the appellants that ‘Annexure E’ is to be executed

forthwith and that vesting/allotment of PA Kash Foods Property immediately

upon signing of the consent terms is accepted, in that case, it would defeat the

plain language of clauses 9, 13, 14, 17 and 18, all of which mandate that matters

relating to PA Kash Foods Property are to be contained in the supplemental

consent terms.   It  is  submitted that  the settlement between the parties in all

respects  was  to  be  crystallized  in  the  supplemental  consent  terms.   It  is

submitted  that  therefore  the  present  consent  terms/consent  decree  can  be

described only as a “framework” in clauses 2, 3 and 30.

4.6 Now so far as reliance placed upon clause 28 of the consent terms by the

appellants is concerned, it is vehemently submitted that clause 28 provides for

no direction to RA Group to sign ‘Annexure E’ on execution of the consent

terms.  It is submitted that in the absence of a direction in a clause dealing with

a  “direction/request”  to  Omkar  Builders  regarding ‘Annexure  E’ completely

militates against PA Group’s submission and their interpretation.  It is submitted

that  if  the  intention  was  for  ‘Annexure  E’ to  be  issued  by  the  RA Group

“forthwith”, clause 28 would have been the obvious and natural pace to provide

for it.   It  is  submitted that  even the Omkar Builders was not a party to the

consent terms/decree and therefore the contents of clause 28 would not bind it.

13

It is submitted that it is only with a view for securing compliance of Omkar

Builders that the High Court passed an order on the same day enabling Omkar

Builders to issue ‘Annexure E’.

4.7 Now so far as the reliance placed upon clause 22 of the consent terms by

the appellants, it is vehemently submitted that as per clause 22 RA Group will

be free to deal with PA Kash Foods Property as their exclusive and absolute

owners  thereof  with effect  from the  filing  of  the  consent  terms and the  PA

Group does not have any claim direct, derivative or otherwise of whatsoever

nature  upon the  same.   It  is  submitted  that  therefore there  may not  be any

restrain against RA Group from dealing with the properties that form the subject

matter of Kash Foods Property.

4.8 It is further submitted that as both the learned Single Judge as well as the

Division Bench have succinctly interpreted the consent  terms/consent decree

and upon understanding and comprehending the intention of the parties have

held that RA Group was not obligated to execute ‘Annexure E’ at this stage and

that independently there was no fetter on the RA Group from dealing with its

properties.

4.9 Making  the  above  submissions,  it  is  prayed  to  dismiss  the  present

appeals.

5. We have heard the learned Senior Advocates for the respective parties at

length.   

14

5.1 At  the  outset,  it  is  required  to  be  noted  that  as  such  the  present

proceedings arise out of the execution proceedings initiated by the appellants

herein, who were also parties to the consent terms/consent decree.  The consent

decree came to be passed in Suit No. 194/2015 filed by the PA Group.  It is also

required to be noted that the dispute in Civil Suit No. 194/2015 filed by the

appellants/PA Group was for seeking 50:50 division of the benefits received by

Kash Foods under the development agreement with Omkar Builders.  However,

from the consent terms dated 14.08.2015, it appears that both the parties – PA

Group and RA Group decided to resolve and settle the other disputes also, i.e.,

over and above the dispute in the suit.  From the consent terms, it appears that

both  the  parties  unconditionally  and  unequivocally   amicably  resolved  and

settled  the  disputes  in  relation to  the  subject  matter  of  Arya  Iron and Steel

Company Private Limited (“AISCO”); International Minerals Trading Company

Private  Limited  (“IMTC”);  Kash  Foods  Private  Limited’s  premises  in  the

Omkar 1973 Project at Worli (“Kash Foods”), which forms the subject matter of

the present Suit;  Orbit  Arya Commercial  Premises (“Orbit Arya Commercial

Premises”); and Disputes in relation to the larger Arya Group of Companies and

its constituents (collectively “the Dispute”).  Further, in the consent terms in

para 2, it has been specifically mentioned that the said consent terms are an

identified  and  mutually  agreed  framework  for  a  complete  parting  of  ways

between the parties and is aimed at bringing about an eventual complete quietus

to the disputes.  Clause 3 of the consent terms further provides that the parties

15

shall execute a definitive “Family Arrangement and Settlement” and/or writings

as may be required and/or as may be advised for a complete parting of ways,

which shall work on the basis of the said mutually agreed framework (“Family

Arrangement  and  Settlement”).    Other  terms  and  conditions  provide  for

modalities to be worked out to enter into a further “Family Arrangement and

Settlement”.   Clause 13 also provides for execution of supplemental consent

terms.  Clause 21 also further provides that until conclusion of the transfer, the

parties shall not affect each other’s rights, in any way in AISCO and/or IMTC.

As per clause 22 of the consent terms, RA Group and/or Kash Foods shall not in

any manner directly and/or indirectly or derivatively be entitled to sell and/or

transfer, and/or dispose of and/or encumber and/or otherwise deal with the PA

Kash Foods Property.  It further provides that the modification, if any, of the

Restraint, shall be identified in the supplementary consent terms.  Clause 23 of

the consent terms further provides that the RA Group and/or Kash Foods shall

publish a Public  Notice within 3 days of  filing of  the supplemental  consent

terms, withdrawing their claims in relation to PA Kash Foods Property (more

particularly described at ‘Annexure C’).  Clause 25 also further provides that

similarly the PA Group shall publish a Public Notice within 3 days of filing of

the supplemental consent terms, as more particularly described at ‘Annexure D’.

Clause  28  of  the  consent  terms  further  provides  that  Omkar  Builders  be

directed/requested  to  issue  a  separate  letter  in  relation  to  the  PA Group’s

entitlement  to  the  PA Kash  Foods  Property  in  Omkar  1973  Project  (more

16

particularly ‘Annexure A’) as per draft at ‘Annexure E’.  Under the said clause,

Omkar Builders was also further directed to strictly abide by the Restraint in

relation to the PA Kash Foods property.  The relevant terms of the settlement are

as under:

“The parties  have  unconditionally  and unequivocally  amicably resolved and settled the disputes in relation to the subject matter of: a. Arya Iron and Steel Company Private Limited (“AISCO”); b. International  Minerals  Trading  Company  Private  Limited (“IMTC”) c. Kash Foods Private  Limited’s  premises  in  the  Omkar  1973 Project at Worli (“Kash Foods”), which forms the subject matter of the present Suit; d. Orbit  Arya  Commercial  Premises  (“Orbit  Arya  Commercial Premises”); and e. Disputes in relation to the larger Arya Group of Companies and its constituents (collectively “the Dispute”)  

2. The  present  Consent  Terms  is  an  identified  and  mutually agreed framework for a complete parting of ways between the Parties  and  is  aimed  at  bringing  about  an  eventual  complete quietus to the Disputes.

3. The Parties shall on or before November 1, 2015 (or such date as may be mutually extended in writing by the Parties) execute a definitive Family Arrangement and Settlement and/or writings (including such documents, writings, undertakings and agreements) as may be required and/or as may be advised for a complete parting of ways, which shall work on the basis of the said  mutually  agreed  framework  (“Family  Arrangement  and Settlement”).

13. As to the (i) PA Kash Foods Property and (ii) Orbit Arya Commercial Premises the Parties have agreed that they would mutually decide the modalities of brief to the Valuers and the Third Valuer and mode of adjustment/payment on or before  August  29,  2015;  and  Supplemental  Consent  Terms

17

recording the same (“Supplemental Consent Terms”) shall  be filed in this Court on August 30, 2015.

14. On  arriving  at  a  final  valuation  for  the  Orbit  Arya Commercial Premises the PA Group agrees to take over the RA Group’s 50% share in the Orbit Arya Commercial Shop as per the modality identified in the Supplementary Consent Terms.

18. The Parties further agree that if there is any dispute or difference of opinion with respect to modalities for valuation, method  of  adjustment/payment,  Bidding  Process  and subsequent Transfer Process, modalities for consummation of transaction and/or guidelines for Valuers then the Parties have agreed  that  their  respective  nominated  Attorneys  will  be authorized  to  respective  Parties  to  resolve  such dispute/difference of opinion.  The Parties undertake not to, at any stage,  raise  any objection relating to  conflict  of  Interest against  the  said  Attorneys  for  assisting  in  resolving  such matters.

21. Until  conclusion of the transfer the Parties shall  not affect each other’s rights in any way in AISCO and/or IMTC.

22. RA Group and/or Kash Foods shall not in any manner, directly  and/or  indirectly  or  derivatively,  be  entitled  to  sell and/or  transfer  and/or  dispose  of  and/or  encumber  and/or otherwise  deal  with  the  PA  Kash  Foods  Property  (more particularly  defined  in  the  schedule  of  Annexure  A)  (the “Restraint”).  The modification, if any, of the Restraint, shall be identified in the Supplementary Consent Terms.  It is expressly agreed and understood between the Parties that the RA Group is free to deal with RA Kash Foods Property (as more particularly defined in Annexure B) as their exclusive and absolute owners thereof with effect from the filing of these consent terms and the  PA Group does  not  have  any claim direct,  derivative  or otherwise of whatsoever nature upon the same.

23. The  RA Group  and/or  Kash  Foods  shall  publish  a Public  Notice  within  3  days  of  filing  of  the  Supplemental Consent Terms, withdrawing their claims in relation to PA Kash Foods Property (as more particularly described at Annexure C).

18

24. The PA Group withdraws all  allegations  against  the Defendants  in  the  captioned  Suit  and  confirms  that  the  PA Group does not have any further interest in Kash Foods Pvt. Ltd or any of its properties save and except properties described in  PA Kash  Foods  Portion,  more  particularly  described  at Annexure A herein.

25. The PA Group shall publish a Public Notice within 3 days  of  filing  of  the  Supplemental  Consent  Terms,  as  more particularly described at Annexure D.

26. In so far as the eventual and complete parting of ways between  the  Parties,  the  Parties  agree  that  the  larger  group matters,  which  shall  be  mutually  identified  in  the Supplementary  Consent  Terms,  shall  be  finally  determined, decided and settled by 4 Mediators – 2 appointed by PA Group and  2  appointed  by  RA Group.    The  Mediators  shall  be appointed on or before August 29, 2015.

27. The Parties hereto agree that for the purpose of giving effect to and/or implementing these Consent Terms, each party unconditionally irrevocably undertakes that it shall, from time to time and at all times at the request of the other party provide full  and complete  co-operation  and do all  such  further  acts, matters,  debts  and/or things that  are  in any manner required and/or necessary,  and/or may be necessary and/or as may be and/or  are  reasonably  required  by  the  other  Party  including executing Supplementary Consent Terms hereto.

28. Omkar  Realtors  and  Developers  Private  Limited (“Omkar” or “Defendant No. 10”) is hereby directed /requested to  issue  a  separate  letter  in  relation  to  the  PA  Group’s entitlement  to  the  PA Kash  Foods  Property  in  Omkar  1973 Project (more particularly annexed at Annexure A hereto) as per draft at Annexure E hereto.  Omkar is hereby further directed to strictly abide by the Restrain in relation to the PA Kash Foods Property.

30. The present Consent Terms provide a frame work for resolution of all matters.  The Parties are at liberty to suitably amend and/or modify the frame work by mutual consent for the purpose of more effectively dealing with modalities as may be required from time to time.”

19

From the aforesaid  terms of  settlement,  it  can  be  seen that  it  was  an

overall  settlement  of  all  the  disputes  between  the  parties  in  relation  to  the

subject matter of AISCO, IMTC, Kash Foods, Orbit Arya Commercial Premises

and the disputes  in  relation to  the larger  Arya Group of  Companies  and its

constituents.  As observed hereinabove and so stated in clause 2 of the terms of

settlement, the consent terms is an identified and mutually agreed framework

for a complete parting of ways between the Parties and is aimed at bringing

about an eventual complete quietus to the Disputes  Considering the aforesaid

terms of the settlement which subsequently became part of the consent decree,

further entering into the family arrangement/supplemental consent terms was

required to be entered into between the parties and the modalities to be worked

out with respect to the valuation, bidding etc. are also mentioned in the consent

terms.  At the same time, under the consent terms/consent decree and as agreed

between the parties,  8 flats as mentioned in the list  at  ‘Annexure A’  to the

consent terms are agreed to be allotted under the re-developed building to the

PA Group and the flats mentioned in the list  at ‘Annexure B’ to the consent

terms are agreed to be allotted to RA Group.  For the 8 flats allotted to PA

Group,  Omkar  Builders  –  original  defendant  no.10  was  required  to  issue  a

separate letter in relation to the PA Group’s entitlement to the PA Kash Foods

Property in Omkar 1973 project as per draft at  ‘Annexure E’ to the consent

terms.  Allotment of the 8 flats as per list at ‘Annexure A’ to the consent terms in

20

favour of PA Group is not disputed and cannot be disputed.  Even in paragraph 3

of  the  consent  decree,  the  submissions  of  the  learned counsel  appearing on

behalf of the respective parties have been recorded and as per the submissions

made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties – PA Group

& RA Group, the division in ‘Annexure A and Annexure B’ is final, viz-a-viz

defendant no.10 – Omkar Builders.  Para 3 of the consent decree reads as under:

“3. Mr.  Samdani,  learned  Senior  Advocate  on  behalf  of Defendant No. 10, the developer, states that this division of flats in Annexures “A” and “B” is between the two Arya groups inter se.  For their part, Mr. Dwarkadas, learned Senior Advocate for the Plaintiffs, and Mr. Jagtiani, learned Senior Advocate for Ravi Arya Group, agree that the division in Annexures “A” and “B” is final  vis-a’-vis  Defendant  No.  10.   They  also  agree  that allotments made and possession given in terms of Annexure “A” and  Annexure  “B”  would  constitute  a  full,  sufficient  and complete discharge of the 10th Defendant’s obligations under the Development Agreement, as also the individual flat agreements already  executed  in  favour  of  the  parties.    In  view of  these statements made by Mr. Dwarkadas and Mr. Jagtiani, which are on  instructions,  Mr.  Samdani  states,  on  instructions,  that  his clients,  Defendant  No.  10,  will  issue  the  letter  a  proforma of which is at Exhibit “E” to the consent terms.”

It appears that as such original defendant no.10 – Omkar Builders had

already issued the letter in the proforma as per ‘Annexure E’ to the consent

terms  in  favour  of  PA Group  with  respect  to  8  flats  allotted  to  PA Group.

Therefore,  it  appears  that  so  far  as  original  defendant  no.  10  is  concerned,

original  defendant  no.10 has  already complied  with  its  obligation  under  the

consent decree.  However, RA Group is not counter-signing the said ‘Annexure

21

E’ and therefore there is not complete transfer of 8 flats in favour of PA Group

which as  such  are  allotted  to  them.   Therefore,  making a  grievance  by not

counter-signing  the  letter  of  allotment  as  per  ‘Annexure  E’,  the  original

defendant  nos.  1  to  6  –  RA Group  have  refused  to  abide  by  the  consent

terms/consent decree.  It is the case on behalf of original defendant nos. 1 to 6 –

RA Group  that  unless  and  until  there  is  a  total  compliance  of  the  consent

terms/consent decree including entering into or execution of the supplemental

consent  terms/family  arrangement  as  agreed  between  the  parties  as  per  the

consent terms/consent decree the defendant nos. 1 to 6 – RA Group are justified

in not counter-signing the letter of allotment as per ‘Annexure E’.  On the other

hand, it is the case on behalf of the appellants – plaintiffs that further execution

of supplemental consent terms/family arrangement has nothing to do with the

allotment of 8 flats in favour of PA Group.

6. Having heard the learned Senior Advocates for the respective parties and

considering the relevant terms of the settlement, reproduced hereinabove, we

are of the opinion that further execution of supplemental consent terms/family

arrangement  is  required  to  be  executed  between  the  parties.  For  whatever

reasons,  the  further  supplemental  consent  terms  have  not  been  entered  into

between the parties.  Therefore, as such, considering the fact that the parties

entered  into  the  consent  terms/settlement  for  a  complete  parting  of  ways

between the parties and so aimed at bringing about an eventual complete quietus

to the disputes between the parties and even parties entered into the consent

22

terms/settlement  to  resolve  and settle  the  disputes  in  relation  to  the  subject

matter of AISCO, IMTC,  Kash Foods, Orbit Arya Commercial Premises and

the  disputes  in  relation  to  the  larger  Arya  Group  of  Companies  and  its

constituents, which were beyond the dispute in the civil suit, the entire consent

terms/consent decree is required to be acted upon and/or implemented by both

the parties.   There cannot  be any execution of  partial  consent terms/consent

decree.  If the submission on behalf of the plaintiffs is accepted and the 8 flats

as per list at ‘Annexure A’ are transferred absolutely and without any condition

in favour of PA Group without there being any further supplemental consent

terms/family arrangement, in that case, the entire object and purpose of entering

into the consent terms/settlement to resolve all the disputes between the parties

will  be frustrated.   Both the parties  to the consent  terms/consent  decree are

required to fully comply with the terms of settlement/the consent terms and the

consent decree.  One party cannot be permitted to say that that portion of the

settlement which is in their favour be executed and/or complied with and not the

other  terms  of  the  settlement/consent  terms/consent  decree.   Under  the

circumstances, as such, both, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division

Bench are justified in holding that the execution of the further supplemental

consent  terms/family  arrangement  is  must  and  there  cannot  be  any  partial

execution of the consent terms/consent decree.

7. Even in the case of Hari Shankar Singhania (supra), the decision which

has been relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

23

appellants, this Court has observed that a family settlement is treated differently

from any other formal commercial settlement as such settlement in the eye of

the law ensures peace and goodwill among the family members.  It is further

observed that technicalities should not be put at risk of the implementation of a

settlement  drawn by a  family,  which is  essential  for  maintaining peace  and

harmony in a family.  It is further observed that it is the duty of the court that

such an arrangement and the terms thereof should be given effect to in letter and

spirit.

7.1 In the case of  Manish Mohan Sharma (supra), this Court has observed

and held that effort of the executing court must be to see that the parties are

given the fruits of the decree.  It is further observed that mandate is reinforced

when it is a consent decree and doubly reinforced when the consent decree is a

family settlement.

8. Now so far as the relied placed upon the decision of this Court in the case

of Saradamani Kandappan (supra), relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate

appearing on behalf  of  the appellants  –  plaintiffs,  more particularly reliance

placed upon paragraph 54 of the said judgment in support of his submission that

in the consent terms/consent decree, it is expressly stated or provided the order

of  performance,  namely,  that  the  further  supplementary  settlement  is  to  be

executed and only after such execution the 8 flats as per list at ‘Annexure A’ to

the  consent  terms shall  be allotted in  favour  of  PA Group is  concerned,  on

24

considering conjoint reading of the terms of the settlement, the said decision

shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand.

8.1 Even  on  conjoint  reading  of  all  the  terms  of  the  settlement,  more

particularly the clauses referred to hereinabove, it can be said that there is an

implied term that both the parties have intended that on one hand as agreed

between the parties further supplemental consent terms/family arrangement is to

be entered into and on the other hand there shall be transfer/allotment of 8 flats

as per list at  ‘Annexure A’ in favour of PA Group.  Any other interpretation

would lead to unworking of the consent terms/consent decree.   As observed

hereinabove, if the consent decree is partially executed and the other parts of the

consent terms are not implemented and/or acted upon, the object and purpose to

resolve all the disputes amicably between the parties and to put an end to all the

disputes between the parties will be frustrated.  

9. However, at the same time, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the 8

flats as per list at ‘Annexure A’ are allotted in favour of PA Group and rest of the

7 flats  as  per  list  at  ‘Annexure B’ are  allotted in  favour  of  RA Group.   At

present, the RA Group is in possession of all the 15 flats.  The RA Group is also

the beneficiary of Rs.45 crores.  Therefore, to strike the balance between the

parties, the RA Group can be directed to counter-sign ‘Annexure E’ letter issued

by Omkar Builders with respect to 8 flats as per list at ‘Annexure A’ which are

allotted in favour of PA Group.  However, with a caveat that till the further

supplemental consent terms/family arrangement as agreed between the parties

25

under the consent terms/consent decree is not executed, PA Group may not be

permitted  to  sell,  transfer  and/or  deal  with  the  said  flats  till  the  consent

terms/consent decree is fully acted upon and implemented between the parties.

At the same time, both the parties are required to be directed to fully implement

the consent terms/consent decree and to enter into further supplemental consent

terms/family arrangement, the modalities of which are mentioned in the consent

terms itself, at the earliest and within a reasonable time. Until then, both the

parties to abide as per the Restraint order as per clause 22 of the consent terms,

except the 7 flats as per list at ‘Annexure B’, which are allotted in favour of RA

Group.

10. In view of  the above and for  the reasons stated above,  the impugned

judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and that of

the learned Single Judge are hereby modified as under:

i) Both the parties – PA Group & RA Group are directed to fully comply

with the consent terms/consent decree and enter into the further supplemental

consent terms/family arrangement after following the modalities to be worked

out with respect to valuation, bidding etc. as mentioned in the consent terms

itself, within a period of four months from today.  Both the parties are directed

to cooperate to fully comply with the consent terms/consent decree and fulfil

their respective part of obligation under the consent terms/consent decree;

ii) that the RA Group shall counter-sign ‘Annexure E’ letter with respect to 8

flats as  per  list  at  ‘Annexure A’ to the consent  terms for  which the original

26

defendant no.10 – Omkar Builders had already issued a letter, within a period of

two weeks.  However, it is directed that till the consent terms/consent decree is

fully  implemented  by  both  the  parties  and  further  supplemental  consent

terms/family arrangement, as ordered hereinabove, is entered into/executed, the

PA Group shall not alienate and/or transfer in any manner whatsoever the said 8

flats.  At the same time, it will be open for original defendant nos. 1 to 6 – RA

Group to deal with the 7 flats as per list at ‘Annexure B’ which are allotted to

them.  At the same time, both the parties to act as per the Restraint order as per

clause 22 of the consent terms.  The original injunction granted by the learned

Single Judge which has been continued till date is directed to be continued till

the  execution  of  the  further  supplemental  consent  terms/family  arrangement

except the 7 flats as per the list at ‘Annexure B’ which are allotted in favour of

RA Group.

11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, both these appeals stand

disposed of.  However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be

no order as to costs.

……………………………….J. [ASHOK  BHUSHAN]

NEW DELHI; ……………………………….J. MARCH 2, 2020. [M.R. SHAH]    

27