RAJ KUMAR GUPTA Vs. BARNES INVESTMENTS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE execution petition has been filed by the three decree holders in ex. P. No. 135/1992 [defendants in CS (OS) 138/1995] seeking enforcement of the decree dated 29. 11. 1990 against judgment debtor No. 1 [plaintiff in cs (OS) 138/1995] for U. S. Dollars 1,248,415. 49, equivalent to Rs. 3,609,821. 01 along with interest @15% P. A. from the date of the decree. The decre has been passed by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Division Bench, commercial Court, in England 1988 Folio No. 1090. The plaintiff filed objections to the execution of the decree. The plaintiff also filed a suit, bearing CS (OS) 138/1995 for declaration and permanent injunction against the enforcement of the said decree.

(2.) THE brief facts relating to the controversy are being set out hereinunder. The plaintiff is the founding chairman of the United Group of companies. Defendants nos. 1 and 3 are the foreign companies stated to be managed by defendant No. 2 or his family members. It is in the year 1982 that defendant No. 2 is stated to have expressed a desire to invest monies on behalf of his family members and himself to the plaintiff by purchase of shares of M/s United Watches Limited and M/s M. P. United Polypropylene limited of the United Group. The defendants were to become co-promoters in both the projects and the investments were to be made by the defendants providing for full repatriation facilities of capital and dividend. This proposal was agreed to by the plaintiff but the same was subject to permission and sanctions from various statutory authorities including Reserve Bank of india. It is the case of the plaintiff that the investment was not to carry any interest. It is in pursuance to this oral agreement that defendant No. 2 is stated to have sent monies to the United Towers India Private Limited, R. K. Towers India Private Limited, United Builders Constructions (India)Private Limited and International Industrial Development Consultants private Limited of the plaintiff as these companies were to transfer their shareholdings to the defendants in M/s United Watches Limited and M/s m. P. United Polypropylene Limited.

(3.) IT is the case of the plaintiff that despite his best efforts, the Reserve bank of India rejected the request of the companies of the plaintiff for transfer of shareholdings to the defendants on a repatriation basis though the Reserve Bank of India was willing to permit investment on non-repatriation basis. On 21. 8. 1984 the defendants are stated to have informed the plaintiff that they were not interested in acquiring the shares on non-repatriation basis and, thus, requested the plaintiff to refund back the money forthwith. The plaintiff claims that in pursuance to this understanding, the amount was so remitted back, thus, putting the transactions to an end.