MEHTA SURAYA Vs. UNITED INVESTMENT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court : The Dispute : The decree in C.S. No. 183 of 1999 was put to execution in G.A. No. 3750 of 2000 by the decree holder Mehta Suraya. The applicant in G.A. No. 3 of 2001, has prayed for setting aside the order amending the said decree and for dismissal of the execution application. The said applicants had also filed a suit being C.S. No. 171 of 2001 for declaration that the decree dated 11th October, 1999 passed in C.S. No. 183 of 1999 (Mehta Suraya Pvt. Ltd. v. United Investment Corporation) and the appellate decree dated 3rd January 2000 passed in APOT No. 913 of 1999 (United Investment Corporation v. Mehta Surya Pvt. Ltd.) by this Hon'ble Court, were obtained in collusion and connivance with each other and by practicing fraud upon this Hon'ble Court and as such the said decrees are fraudulent, illegal null and void and be cancelled and set aside. T. No. 240 of 2001 has been filed in the said C.S. No. 171 of 2001 for receiver and injunction. These 3 applications being G.A. No. 3750 of 2000, G.A. No. 3 of 2001 and T. No. 240 of 2001 were taken up for hearing by consent of the parties, since the decision on one application will affect the other and the question raised in each of these applications are interrelated and mostly common in each other. Facts:

(2.) In order to decide the issues raised in relation to the said 3 applications, it would be relevant to refer to the facts in the form of List of dates as hereafter: 16th July 1962:Mehta Suraya granted a lease of vacant land at Ezra Street, Calcutta for 33 years with two options for renewal for two further successive period of 33 years each, to its sister concern United Investment Corporation (UIC) (being the defendant No. 1 herein) (Pg. 87 of T 240 of 2001. 1965:UIC constructed a 12 storied building on the said land known as World Trade Center (hereinafter referred to as ?the said building?). 1965 onwards:UIC sub-let various portions of the said building to various tenants, who have since been occupying the said building and regularly paying rent, service charges and electricity charges to UIC. 23rd September 1975:Supplemental Deed was executed and registered by and between UIC and Mehta Suraya confirming the power of UIC to sub-let any part of the building at its absolute discretion without further permission from Mehta Suraya (Pg. 98 of T. 240 of 2001.) 2nd July 1995:Before the original term of 33 years expired UIC exercised its option for renewal of the original lease for a further term of 33 years i.e., till 2028. 1997:The Mehta and Suraya families and their associates, who were all along the owners, shareholders and partners of UIC and Mehta Suraya, transferred their rights and interests in Mehta Suraya and UIC to a group consisting of Bachraj Dugar, Sudhir Prakash and their representatives. 15th December 1997:By a letter written by UIC to Mehta Suraya, UIC purported to terminate the said lease and agreed to deliver vacant possession of the said building with effect from 1st July 1998. (Pg. 104 of T 240/2001) 26th March 1999:Mehta Suraya instituted a suit being C.S. No. 183 of 1999 against UIC for recovery of vacant possession of the land without any mention about the building and for other reliefs. The tenants of UIC were not made parties to this suit. 20th April 1999:On the basis of the letter dated 15th December, 1997, an application was filed by Mehta Suraya for judgment upon admission and for eviction of UIC from the said land. 11th October 1999:Hon'ble Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J., at the hearing of the application for judgment on admission, was pleased to pass an ejectment decree only against UIC on the basis of the admission contained in the said letter dated 15th December 1997. (Pg. 105)(T 240 of 2001) December 1999:UIC preferred an appeal against the ejectment decree. 3rd January 2000:The appellate Court after hearing the appeal of UIC on merits, dismissed the appeal. 8th May 2000:Special Leave Petition preferred against the order dated 3rd January, 2000 was dismissed. 12th July 2000:Decree dated 11th October, 1999 was signed by Hon'ble Mr. Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. and subsequently it was filed. 5th August 2000:Mehta Suraya filed an application for amendment of the decree, the plaint and also the application for judgment upon admission, which had already been disposed of by the Judgment and decree dated 11th October, 1999, since been signed and filed. 17th August 2000 & 22nd August 2000:Hon'ble Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. was pleased to allow the application of Mehta Suraya directing amendment of the decree already signed by Hon'ble Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J., so as to include the words ?including the ten-storeyed building standing thereon? and also allowing the application for amendment of the plaint and the application for judgment upon admission. 28th August 2000:IPM & Others being the plaintiff in CS 171 of 2001 applicants in GA 3 of 2001 and T 240 of 2001 learnt, for the first time, about the ejectment suit filed by Mehta Suraya against UIC. According to IPM & Ors. the ejectment suit was collusively filed and the ejectment decree was obtained fraudulently suppressing the existence of more than 17 different sub-lessees. September 2000:Mehta Suraya filed an application for execution of the decree passed by Hon'ble Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J., as amended by orders dated 17th August, 2000 and 22nd August 2000 passed by Hon'ble Pinaki Chandra Ghosh, J. 16th November 2000:Hon'ble Pinaki Chandra, J. was pleased to direct Mehta Suraya to furnish copies of all pleadings including the application for amendment to the plaintiffs being (IPM & Others). 2nd January 2001:IPM & Ors. filed G.A. No. 3 of 2001 for setting aside the order amending the decree and for dismissal of the execution application G.A. No. 3750 of 2000, seeking to execute the amended decree passed in C.S. No. 183 of 1999. 15th March 2001:IPM & Ors. filed C.S. No. 171 of 2001 for declaration that the decree passed in C.S.No. 183 of 1999 and in the appeal thereout, were collusive and fraudulent and as such a nullity and void and for setting aside the said decree. 28th March 2001:IPM & Ors. Filed T. No. 240 of 2001 in C.S. No. 171 of 2001 for receiver and injunction. Arguments:

(3.) It is in this background, the present case is being argued by the respective counsel for the respective parties in support or against the said 3 respective applications being G.A. No. 3750 of 2000, G.A. No. 3 of 2001 and T. No. 240 of 2001.