HUNGERFORD INVESTMENT TRUST LIMITED Vs. HARIDAS MUNDHRALTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for a certificate under Article 133 (1) (a) (b) and (c) of the Constitution. The judgment and order from which an appeal is proposed to be preferred to the Supreme Court is a judgment of reversal. Therefore the only two questions to be considered are whether the order is a final order and secondly whether the valuation test required by Article 133 (1) (a) or (b)is satisfied.

(2.) THE matter in which the judgment was delivered, arose out of a contract for sale of 51 per cent Ordinary Shares in the capital of Turner Morrison and co. Private Limited (respondent No. 4 ). A suit was filed by Haridas Mundhra (respondent No. 1) against the applicant and others for specific performance of the agreement for sale of the shares. By a judgment and decree dated february 25, 1964, a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement. By this decree the defendants were directed to deliver up to the plaintiff the shares against payment of the consideration. The total number of shares involved in the contract was 2295 shares, the value of which at the agreed rate is rs. 86,60,000/ -. Numerous proceedings were taken by the parties arising out of the agreement and the decree, to which it is not necessary to refer for the purpose of this application.

(3.) ON August 30, 1965, an application was made for an order directing the respondent No. 1 to carry out the decree by paying Rs. 86,60,000/- and an order on the applicant to make over proper transfer deeds in respect of the shares within a time to be fixed by the court and in dafault of payment of the sum of Rs. 86,60,000/- the contract should stand rescinded. This application was dismissed on September 28, 1965, and an appeal against the order of dismissal was also dismissed on august 18, 1966. Thereafter on March 21, 1967, the applicant made another application for an order that the agreement for sale of the shares do stand rescinded, for appointment of a Receiver who was to tender to the respondent no. 1 the shares upon payment of rs. 86,60,000/- and for various other reliefs. This application was disposed of by Masud J. by an order made on july 14, 1969, by which it was held that the respondent No. 1 committed breach of the contract, which was directed to be specifically performed by the decree, and that he created a situation which showed that he was never anxious to perform his part of the contract. Against this order an appeal was preferred which was disposed of by us by a judgment and order dated september 14, 1970, whereby the appeal and the cross-objection were allowed in part. The order of Masud J. was set aside in its entirety.