MESSRS SEHGAL BROTHERS Vs. BHARAT BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 30th of January, 1953, the Bharat Bank Limited now called Bharat Nidhi Limited, obtained a decree for Rs. 9,128/15/9 and costs and future interest from the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Amritsar, against Messrs. Sehgal Brothers of Jullundur represented by two brothers, Ram Saran Das Sehgal and Pran Nath Sehgal. On 31st of July, 1953, the same bank obtained another decree for Rs. 31,237/12/- with costs and future interest against the same judgment-debtors, from the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Jullundur,

(2.) On 12th of March, 1955, when an execution application was pending in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Jullundur, the parties entered into a compromise covering both the decrees. This compromise was recorded and the execution application was dismissed as unsatisfied in accordance with the terms of the compromise. On 29th of August, 1955, the same compromise was mentioned in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge at Amritsar where an execution application was then pending and that execution application was similarly dismissed as unsatisfied in terms of the same compromise.

(3.) The terms of the compromise were that the Judgment-debtors will pay the decree-holder the amount of the two decrees along with costs and future interest as calculated upto 15th of April 1955 in certain instalments, the entire amount to be paid by 15th October, 1958. To begin wit the instalments were to be of Rs. 3,000/- each payable quarterly for a period of two years and after that the instalments were to be so arranged that the balance of the amount was all paid by the date fixed, that is 15th of October, 1958. It was agreed that in case the instalments were paid regularly the interest accruing under terms of the two decrees subsequent to the 15th of April, 1955, will not be charged by the decree-holder but in case there was default in payment of any installment, the decree-holder was entitled to charge full interest and the two decretal amounts were in that case recoverable in full as provided in the decrees. In return for the concession allowing instalments and giving up interest after the 15th of April, 1955, the judgment-debtors agreed that the decree-holder will in the meantime have a lien on Certain properties mentioned in Sch, 'A' and in case of default they agreed that the decree-holder will be entitled to recover the amounts by sale of those properties apart from any other method. It appears that some of the judgment-debtors' properties were at the time of this compromise liable to be seized by the Income-tax Department and the decree- holder was therefore allowed a second lien on the properties. A provision was also made that if the income-tax arrears were cleared off, the two properties specified in Schedule 'B' to the compromise would be under mortgage with the decree-holder and the remaining properties would be released. Another term of the compromise not very material now provided that a dispute regarding certain goods pledged by the judgment-debtors with the decree-holder then pending before the Senior Subordinate Judge, Amritsar would be settled by that Court and the judgment-debtors would abide by the decision. As I have said, the two execution applications in the two Courts were in pursuance of this compromise dismissed as unsatisfied, one on the 12th of March, 1955, and the other on the 29th of August, 1955.