{"id":15769,"date":"1995-12-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-11-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabari-pvt-ltd-vs-shivnath-shroff-and-ors-on-1-december-1995"},"modified":"2019-04-03T13:52:09","modified_gmt":"2019-04-03T08:22:09","slug":"kabari-pvt-ltd-vs-shivnath-shroff-and-ors-on-1-december-1995","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabari-pvt-ltd-vs-shivnath-shroff-and-ors-on-1-december-1995","title":{"rendered":"Kabari Pvt. Ltd vs Shivnath Shroff And Ors on 1 December, 1995"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kabari Pvt. Ltd vs Shivnath Shroff And Ors on 1 December, 1995<\/div>\n
Bench: G.N. Ray, Dr. A.S. Anand<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  11517 of 1995\n\nPETITIONER:\nKABARI PVT. LTD.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHIVNATH SHROFF AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/12\/1995\n\nBENCH:\nG.N. RAY & DR. A.S. ANAND\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGEMENT<\/p>\n
1995 SUPP. (6) SCR 77<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ‘<\/p>\n
G.N. RAY, J. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
The Appeals arising out of Special leave petition (Civil) Nos. 6912 and
\n6914 of 1994 which have been preferred against the order of the Division
\nBench of the Calcutta High Court passed on the Review Application for
\nrecalling the order dismissing Appeal No. 619 of 1992 arising out of Suit
\nNo. 531 of 1981 instituted in the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of
\nthe Calcutta High Court. The appeals arising out of Special leave petition
\n(Civil) Nos. 6254 and 6913 of 1994 are directed against the order passed by
\nthe Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on the Review Application for
\nsetting aside the order passed in Appeal No. 410 of 1992 arising out of an
\norder refusing to grant extension of time to effect amendment of plaint in
\nSuit No. 531 of 1981. For the purpose of appreciating the rival contentions
\nof the parties in these appeals, the relevant facts relating to the
\naforesaid Suit No. 531 of 1981 and two appeals being Appeal Nos. 619 and
\n410 of 1992 arising out of Suit No. 531 of 1981 are to be noted as
\nhereunder.\n<\/p>\n
There was an agreement on September 21, 1978, for sale of Property No. 8A.
\nBurdwan Road, Calcutta, for a consideration of Rs. 2 lacs between the
\nplaintiffs and the defendants. The agreement was signed in the Office of
\nSolicitors of the defendants-Vendors, namely. M\/s. Khaitan & Co. The
\nplaintiff No. 1 was already in possession of the said property. Pursuant to
\nsuch agreement, the plaintiff had paid earnest money by cheque on August
\n28, 1978. On January 15. 1979, a further sum of Rs. 15,000 was paid by the
\nplaintiff No. 1 by cheque. The Draft Deed of Conveyance was duly approved
\nby the Solicitors of the vendors. The Vendors made an application on June
\n23, 1980 for permission for sale in favour of the plaintiffs before the
\nauthorities under the Urban Land and Ceiling Act. On July 1, 1981, the
\nSolicitors of the vendors, namely, M\/s. Khaitan & Co. informed the
\nsolicitors of the plaintiffs that the permission to sale had been refused
\nby the authorities under the Urban Land and Ceiling Act. The Vendors,
\nhowever, transferred the said premises No. 8A. Burdwan Road, in favour of
\nM\/s. Kabari Pvt. Ltd. after obtaining permission from the Urban Land and
\nCeiling authority. The plaintiffs, namely, Shivanath Sharoff & Ors., filed
\nthe suit for specific performance of the agreement in the ordinary original
\ncivil jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court being Suit No. 531 of 1981.
\nIn the said suit, an application for interim injunction restraining the
\ndefendants, namely, the Vendors from dealing with or disposing or the said
\npremises was made and an ad interim order was passed on such application
\nfor interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff. On July 20, 1981 the
\ninterlocutory application appeared as New Motion when the defendants
\n(Vendors) appeared and submitted before the Court that the said premises
\nNo. 8A, Burdwan Road, had already been transferred to a third party,
\nnamely. M\/s. Kabari Pvt. Ltd. It was also contended by the defendants that
\nthe agreement of sale dated September 21, 1978 in favour of the plaintiffs
\nceased to exist due to refusal to sell the said property by the authorities
\nunder the Urban Land and Ceiling Act. The defendants (Vendors) also stated
\nthat by four separate deeds of conveyance all dated July 6. 1981 the said
\npremises had been conveyed in favour of the said M\/s. Kabari Pvt. Ltd. On
\nMarch 8, 1982, the plaintiffs made an application in the said Suit No. 531
\nof 1981 for amendment of the plaint seeking to implead M\/s. Kabari Pvt.
\nLtd. and also to effect other amendments in the body and prayer of the
\nplaint. On June 1, 1982. M\/s. Kabari Pvt. Ltd. affirmed an affidavit and
\nfiled the same in Court. On July 9, 1982, the Court after hearing the
\nparties including M\/s. Kabari Pvt. Ltd. allowed the application for
\namendment of plaint and the added respondent, namely, the said M\/s. Kabari
\nPvt. Ltd. was restrained from alienating or encumbering the disputed
\npremises. On July 14, 1982, fresh writ of summons was directed to be issued
\nfor service on the added respondent, namely, M\/s. Kabari Pvt. Ltd. It is
\nthe case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs by their letter requested
\ntheir Solicitors M\/s. T. Banerjee & Co. to comply with the orders passed by
\nthe Court for effecting service upon the added respondent. It is the
\nfurther case of the plaintiff that on July 28, 1982, the plaintiffs also
\nrequested M\/s. T. Banerjee & Co. to carry out the amendment and to serve
\nthe writ of summons. It may be stated here that after purchasing the suit
\nproperty M\/s. Kabari Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit for eviction of the plaintiffs
\nfrom the suit premises before the learned Subordinate Judge, Allbore. By an
\norder dated September 22, 1982, the said suit was transferred to the High
\nCourt for disposal and the same is pending before the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
In March, 1986, M\/s T. Banerjee & Co. the Solicitors of the plaintiffs
\nwrote a latter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income tax on
\nbehalf of the plaintiffs that the entire matter relating to the transfer of
\nthe suit premises to Ms. Kabari Pvt. Ltd. was subjudice and pending
\ndecision of the Calcutta High Court. It is stated that Mr. Debashis
\nMukherjee, Advocate and Partner of M\/s. T. Banerjee & Co. who was dealing
\nwith the said Suit No. 531 of 1981 for the plaintiffs died on November 15,
\n1990. On June 25, 1991, the suit appeared for scrutiny before the Senior
\nMaster on the original side of the Calcutta High Court and an Assistant of
\nM\/s. T. Banerjee & Co. appeared before the Senior Master and the matter was
\nadjourned to July 11, 1991. Mr. Khanna, Assistant of M\/s. T. Banerjee & Co.
\nagain appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs before the Senior Master on July
\n11, 1991 and prayed for time. Thereafter, on August 8, 1991 the suit again
\nappeared for scrutiny before the Senior Master and Mr. Sunil Mitra of M\/s.
\nT. Banerjee & Co. appeared for the plaintiffs before the Senior Master and
\nprayed for three weeks time. The learned Advocate on behalf of M\/s. Kabari
\nPvt. Ltd. also appeared and the matter was adjourned till September 3,
\n1991. According to the plaintiffs. M\/s T. Banerjee & Co. orally informed
\nthe plaintiff on August 8, 1991 that the suit had appeared in the scrutiny
\nlist. A letter to that effect was also written .by M\/s. T. Banerjee & Co.
\nto the plaintiffs and according to the plaintiffs such letter was received
\nby the plaintiffs on August 14, 1991. After receiving oral information from
\nM\/s. T. Banerjee & Co. the plaintiffs wrote on August 9, 1991 to M\/s. T.
\nBanerjee & Co. that the plaintiffs had not been informed about the earlier
\norder passed on July 19, and July 14, 1982. In the said letter, the
\nplaintiffs expressed surprises and dissatisfaction as proper steps had not
\nbeen taken to effect amendment of the plaint. On September 3, 1991, the
\nsaid suit appeared for scrutiny before the Senior Master but since no
\nsitting had taken place on that date, the matter was preferred till
\nSeptember 11, 1991. On September 11, 1991, M\/s. T. Banerjee & Co. requested
\nthe plaintiffs to call on their office for perusal of the draft application
\nprepared by the learned counsel and such application was affirmed. On
\nSeptember 26, 1991, the suit appeared before the Senior Master but nobody
\nappeared for the plaintiffs. The learned Advocate appearing for M\/s. Kabari
\nPvt. Ltd. However, submitted that the suit should be directed to be placed
\nin the special list. Accordingly, an order was passed for placing the suit
\nin the special list. M\/s. T. Banerjee & Co. wrote to the plaintiffs on
\nSeptember 26, 1991, that the said suit appeared in the scrutiny list and
\nthe same would be placed in the special list for scrutiny. On September 10,
\n1991, the plaintiffs affirmed an application for extension of time to carry
\nout the amendment and on October 10, 1991 such application was moved in
\nCourt. It may be stated that M\/s. T. Banerjee & Co. acted as Advocate on
\nRecord for the plaintiffs in connection with the application for extension
\nof time to carry out the amendment. On December 20, 1991 M\/s. T. Banerjee &
\nCo. informed the plaintiff that the application had been adjourned till
\nJanuary 20,1991. The said application for extension of time to carry out
\nAmendment was, however dismissed by the Court on March 13, 1992. The
\nplaintiffs informed their Solicitors M\/s. T. Banerjee & Co. on March 17,
\n1992 that the steps should be taken to prefer appeal. On May 27, 1992, an
\nappeal against order dated March 13, 1992 dismissing the application for
\nextension of time to effect amendment was filed. Such appeal was numbered
\nas appeal No. 410 of 1992. Oh June 18, 1992, the Registry of the High Court
\nissued notice to M\/s. T. Banerjee & Co. informing that the suit should be
\nset down in the special list of the Hon’ble Judge taking interlocutory
\nmatters from July 14, 1992. Such notice had been received by M\/s. T.
\nBanerjee & Co. The suit appeared before the Court. M\/s. Kabari Pvt. Ltd.
\nalso appeared through the learned counsel and the suit was dismissed. It
\nmay be mentioned here that the minutes of the Court proceeding indicate
\nthat Mr. Ranjanam Guha, learned Advocate appeared for the plaintiffs. The
\nplaintiffs were also informed by M\/s. T. Banerjee & Co. that the suit
\nappeared in the special list and the prayer for a direction that the suit
\nshould go out of the special list was opposed by the defendants including
\nM\/s. Kabari Pvt. Ltd. and the suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs instructed
\nM\/s. T. Banerjee & Co. their Solicitors to prefer an appeal against the
\norder of dismissal of the suit. Appeal No. 619 of 1992 was filed against
\nthe said order dated July 14, 1992 dismissing the suit. Both the said
\nappeals, namely, appeal No. 410 of 1992 appeal No. 619 of 1992 were,
\nhowever dismissed by a common judgment by the Division Bench of the
\nCalcutta High Court on February 16, 1993. At this stage the plaintiffs
\nchanged their Solicitors and M\/s. L.F. Aggarwala and Co. was engaged as
\ntheir Solicitors.\n<\/p>\n
On April 17, 1993, the plaintiffs filed two special leave petitions before
\nthis Court. Special leave petition (C) No. 8083 of 1993 was directed
\nagainst dismissal of the appeal No. 410 of 1992 arising out of the order
\nrefusing to extend that time to effect amendment and Special leave petition
\n(C) No. 8084 of 1993 was directed against dismissal of the appeal No. 619
\n.of 1992 (which arose out of the order of dismissal of Suit No. 331 of
\n1981). It may be stated here that M\/s. L.P. Agarwalla & Co. acted as
\nAdvocates for the plaintiffs in both the said Special Leave Petitions. The
\nplaintiffs thereafter filed Review Petitions on June 17,1993 before the
\nCalcutta High Court for recalling the orders dismissing Appeals Nos. 410 of
\n1992 and 619 of 1992 and M\/s. L.P. Agarwalla & Co. acted as Solicitors for
\nthe plaintiffs\/petitioners. It is to be noted here that the plaintiffs did
\nnot mention in the Review Applications that this Court had already been
\nmoved against the said orders of dismissal of the appeals by filing the
\naforesaid special leave petitions. The plaintiffs did not make any attempt
\nto get the said special leave petitions taken up for hearing. On the
\ncontrary, the learned counsel for the petitioners in the said special leave
\npetitions mentioned the matter on several occasions for adjournment. As a
\nresult, the special leave petitions were not even listed for hearing on
\nseveral occasions. It was only after the Review Petitions were allowed by
\nthe Calcutta High Court on March 18, 1994, the special leave petitions were
\nallowed to be dismissed as withdrawn on the prayer of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in
\nSpecial leave petition (C) Nos. 6913-6914 of 1994 has very strongly
\ncontended that the plaintiffs respondents Shivnath Shroff and others filed
\nthe said Suit No. 531 of 1981 for specific performance of contract in the
\nHigh Court and on the prayer of the plaintiffs to amend the body of the
\nplaint and also the prayer portion, the High Court allowed the prayer as
\nfar back as on July 9, 1982. On July 14, 1982-fresh writ of summons was
\ndirected to be issued for service on Kabari Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiffs in an
\nattempt to delay the hearing of the suit and in furtherance of the evil
\ndesign in adopting dilatory tactics, deliberately failed and neglected to
\ntake steps for effecting amendment of the plaint. The Suit appeared for
\nscrutiny before the Senior Master of the High Court (Original Side) on June
\n25, 1991 and thereafter on subsequent dates. But the plaintiffs did not
\ntake steps for effecting amendment even then. Mr. Nariman has submitted
\nthat even if it is accepted that Sri Debashish Mukherjee, Advocate and
\npartner of M\/s T. Banerjee & Co. Solicitors was in charge of the said Suit
\nNo. 531 of 1981 and he having died on November 15, 1990, appropriate steps
\nin effecting amendment of plaint could not be taken by the plaintiffs on
\nearlier occasions, there cannot be any reasonable explanation for the
\nfailure on the part of the plaintiffs and their Solicitors in not taking
\nsteps at least from June 25, 1991 when the matter started appearing on
\nvarious dates before the Senior Master for scrutiny. It is not the case
\nthat because of death of Sri Mukherjee who was incharge of the said suit,
\nthe Solicitors of the plaintiffs lost sight of the suit. The plaintiffs as
\na matter of fact were represented either by an Assistant to the Solicitors
\nor by an Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs before the Senior Master.
\nAdmittedly, the plaintiffs were informed by their Solicitors on August 8,
\n1991 that for not taking steps in effecting amendment, the suit was
\nappearing before the Senior Master for scrutiny. Even then, the plaintiffs
\nand their Solicitors were not at all diligent to take appropriate steps
\nimmediately. It was only on September 30, 1991 an application for extension
\nof tune to carry out amendment was affirmed by the plaintiffs and only on
\nOctober 10, 1991 such application was moved in Court. The Court, however,
\nrightly rejected the said application on March 13, 1992 as the plaintiffs
\nfailed to satisfy the Court about the bona fide of the plaintiffs in not
\ntaking steps for effecting amendment from July, 1982, namely, for about 10
\nyears. Mr. Nariman has submitted that the suit thereafter appeared in
\n‘Special List’. On July 14, when the suit appeared in ‘Special List’, Ms.
\nRanjanam Guha, learned Advocate appeared for the plaintiffs. The Court
\ndismissed the suit for gross negligence on the part of the plaintiffs. Mr.
\nNariman has submitted that it is quite evident that the Single Bench of the
\nHigh Court rejected the plea of the plaintiffs that there was no laches and
\nnegligence on their part and for negligence and laches on the part of their
\nsolicitors the plaintiffs should not be victimised.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Nariman has submitted that although special leave petitions are not
\nstatutory appeals and exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
\nConstitution is discretionary with this Court, the fact remains that the
\norders of dismissal of the appeals by the High Court were assailed before a
\nsuperior court by filing special leave petitions. From the judgment
\ndisposing of the review applications, it does not appear that the attention
\nof the High Court was drawn that to the fact that prior to the filing of
\nreview applications, special leave applications had been filed before this
\nCourt and such applications had been pending disposal. Mr. Nariman has
\nsubmitted that if the petitioners had specifically stated in the review
\npetitions that this Court had already been moved by filing special leave
\npetitions and such applications were pending, in all probability, the High
\nCourt would not have entertained the review applications for disposal on
\nmerits. Pendency of two parallel proceedings for the same relief namely
\nsetting aside the orders dismissing the said appeals – one before the Apex
\nCourt by way of special leave petitions and the other before the High Court
\nby way of review applications cannot be encouraged because of the
\npossibility of inconsistent findings by the courts. Mr. Nariman has
\nsubmitted that review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
\nmust be construed in a wider sense keeping in mind the underlying principle
\ninvolved, that before making review applications, no superior court has
\nbeen moved for getting the self same relief. He has submitted that gross
\ninjustice has been meted out to the defendants-petitioners by allowing
\nreviewing applications despite grossest negligence and laches on the part
\nof the plaintiffs in not carrying out the proceedings of the said suit
\ndiligently but indulging in dilatory tactics. He, therefore, submits that
\nthe special leave petitions should be allowed and impugned orders should be
\nset aside.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Sanghi the learned senior counsel appearing for M\/s. Kabari Pvt. Ltd.
\nin the order two special leave petitions has supported Mr. Nariman in his
\nsubmission both on facts and law.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Sanghi has submitted that the plaintiffs-respondents cannot be
\npermitted to contend that they are not required to keep vigil about the
\nprogress of the suit and carriage of the proceedings in connection with the
\nsame. The plaintiffs are educated businessmen. They stay in Calcutta
\nitself. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that Sri Debashish Banerjee, a
\npartner of their solicitors T. Banerjee and Company who is stated to have
\nbeen dealing with their case in the High Court, had wrongly informed the
\nplaintiffs that all necessary steps for effecting amendment of plaint had
\nbeen taken and on such representation they had no occasion to cause any
\nenquiry in the matter. Mr. Sanghi has submitted that the letter dated
\nAugust 9, 1991 stated to have been written by the plaintiffs to their
\nsolicitors T. Banerjee and Company on getting oral information from the
\nsolicitors on August 8, 1991 that the suit had been placed in the scrutiny
\nlist on account of failing to take steps in effecting amendment of the
\nplaint, should not be accepted to have been bona fide written on 9th
\nAugust. Such letter, according to Mr. Sanghi, was later on fabricated for
\nthe purpose of showing that the plaintiffs solicitors had let them down by
\nkeeping them in darkness about the progress of the suit. Mr. Sanghi has
\nvery strongly contended that the role of the plainfiffs even when
\nadmittedly they came to know that their solicitors miserably failed to take
\nproper steps in the carriage of proceedings in the suit and the solicitors
\nalso failed to keep them informed about the developments of the suit, is
\nfar from being satisfactory. The plaintiffs ought to have ensured either by
\npersonally attending to the matter or by sending some of their officers,
\nthat steps for enlarging the date for taking steps in effecting amendment
\nof plaint was taken immediately. It is an admitted position that the matter
\nappeared before Senior Master on a number of occasions and only on October
\n10, 1991 an application for extension of time was made by the plaintiffs,
\nwhich was rightly rejected by the Court.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Sanghi has also submitted that the plaintiffs did not change their
\nsolicitors even when the application for extension of time was dismissed
\nand later on when the suit itself was dismissed. Admittedly the same
\nsolicitors namely Messers T. Benerjee and Company were retained for
\npreferring both the said appeals. It was only when both the appeals were
\ndismissed by the High Court, the plaintiffs changed their solicitors and
\nMessers L.P. Agarwalla and Company was engaged at their solicitors. Mr.
\nSanghi has submitted that such change was made designedly to put blames on
\ntheir previous solicitors and to make out a false case of alleged discovery
\nof some relevant facts relating to the steps taken by their previous
\nsolicitors so that a case for filing review application may be made out.
\nMr. Sanghi has submitted that M\/s. Kabari Private Limited had purchased the
\nproperty long back. They are keen to get possession of the property. The
\nsuit for eviction of the plaintiffs who are in possession of the disputed
\nproperty had been transferred to High Court because of the said title suit
\ninstituted by the plaintiffs in the High Court claiming specific
\nperformance of contract was pending in the High Court. Mr. Sanghi has
\nsubmitted that M\/s. Kabari Private Limited has been suffering serious
\nprejudice on account of frivolous litigation and proceedings arising out of
\nit at the instance of the plaintiffs for prolonging their illegal
\noccupation of the suit property.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Sanghi has submitted that the plaintiffs knew well that there was no
\ncase for review of the orders dismissing the said appeals. Hence, as a last
\nresort they preferred special leave petitions before this Court assailing
\nthe orders dismissing the said appeals. He has submitted that in the facts
\nof the case, it is quite apparent that later on, applications for review
\nhad been filed before the High Court on false and fabricated premises. In
\nthe review petitions, the plaintiffs deliberately suppressed the fact that
\nthey had already approached the Apex Court for assailing the orders of
\ndismissal of the appeals by preferring special leave petitions.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Sanghi has submitted that even though from the degree dismissing the
\nsuit by the High Court, a litigant can not maintain an appeal as a matter
\nof right but an appeal certainly lies to this Court, subject to grant of
\nleave by the High Court or grant of special leave by this Court. He has
\nsubmitted that the expression “from which an appeal is allowed” appearing
\nin clause (a) of Order 47 Rule 1,C.P. Code must be construed liberally so
\nthat appeal preferred before this Court by filing special leave petitions
\nto admit the appeal for assailing the judgment or order of a court inferior
\nto it operates as a bar to the maintainability of a review application
\nfiled subsequently before the High Court for the same purpose namely for
\nassailing the impugned judgment. The salutary principle which bars two
\nparallel proceedings initiated before two different forums namely the court
\nwhich would review its own judgment and the superior court which would
\nconsider the correctness of the said judgment would be defeated if the
\nexpression appeal is allowed is given a narrow interpretation thereby
\nlimiting it to an appeal which may be preferred as a matter of right
\nwithout requiring any leave to be granted for preferring such appeal. Mr.
\nSanghi has submitted that the plaintiffs in this case have exercised option
\nto assail the impugned judgments by preferring appeals before this Court by
\ngranting special leave instead of getting the said judgments reviewed by
\nthe High Court. In such circumstances, the review applications must be held
\nas not maintainable and should be treated as dismissed. Mr. Sanghi has
\nsubmitted that the plaintiffs are guilty of a sharp practice in suppressing
\nthe factum of presentation of the special leave petitions before this Court
\nprior to the filing of the review applications before the High Court by not
\nmentioning this important fact in the review applications. He has,
\ntherefore, submitted that the impugned orders passed by the High Court in
\nallowing the review application should be dismissed with exemplary cost.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Salve, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs
\nrespondents, however, refuted the contentions of both Mr. Nariman and Mr.
\nSanghi. Mr. Salve has submitted that the suit was instituted in the
\nordinary original jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. The High Court
\nhas framed special rules of procedure for the carriage of the proceedings
\nin the suit instituted in the original side. Precisely for the said reason,
\nthe service of a reputed solicitors firm namely Messers T. Banerjee and
\nCompany was requisitioned by the plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs and their
\npredecessors had close association with Messers T. Banerjee and Company and
\nthe plaintiffs had reposed trust and confidence in such firm in the matter
\nof carriage of the proceedings in the said suit. The court in its
\nexperience can take notice of the fact that disposal of suit in the High
\nCourt takes several years. Hence, it is neither necessary nor practicable
\nto cause enquiries every now and then about the progress of the suit.
\nMoreover when a reputed and experienced solicitors firm had been engaged by
\nthe plaintiffs, there was enough justification on their part to depend on
\nsuch firm. The criticism that plaintiffs being educated businessman staying
\nin Calcutta itself should have ensured either by themselves or by their
\nofficers that proper steps in the suit were being taken in the suit, is not
\nproper and justified. Mr. Salve has submitted that plaintiffs on coming to
\nlearn that the suit was placed in scrutiny list for not taking proper steps
\nin effecting amendment expressed their shock and anguish for failure to
\ntake appropriate steps in their letter dated August 9, 1991 addressed to
\ntheir solicitors. Because of the long association with the said firm the
\nplaintiffs did not change the solicitors and retained their services till
\nthe hearing of the said appeals. But as it finally appeared to the
\nplaintiffs that solicitors were not only guilty of serious laches but were
\nno longer dependable, they change the solicitors firm and Messers L.P.
\nAgarwalla and Company were engaged as their solicitors. Mr. Salve has
\nsubmitted that all relevant facts could not be placed before the Court at
\nthe time of disposal of the appeals. But with the change of the solicitors
\nand on obtaining further materials in possession of the old solicitors,
\nreview applications had been made by drawing attention of the Court to the
\nfacts and circumstances which amply demonstrated that the plaintiffs were
\nnot guilty of laches and negligence but they fell victim to the laches and
\nnegligence on the part of their previous solicitors and the Court, on
\nconsideration of relevant facts, has felt that the unfortunate litigants
\nshould not suffer for laches and negligence of their solicitors and keeping
\nthe paramount consideration of ends of justice, allowed the review
\napplications. Mr. Salve has also submitted that although in the review
\napplications the factum of presenting the special leave petitions before
\nthis Court was not specifically mentioned but he has mentioned that he is
\ninstructed to submit that such fact was made known to the court before
\ndisposal of the said review applications. He has submitted that the
\nallegations of sharp practice being resorted to by the plaintiffs and
\ndeliberate suppression of material facts namely non disclosure of
\npresentation of special leave petitions before filing review applications
\nand pendency of such petitions are unfortunate and not correct out the same
\nhave been made to cause prejudice against the plaintiffs respondents.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Salve has submitted that special leave petitions under Article 136 of
\nthe Constitution stand entirely on a different footing. Exercise of
\njurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 is absolutely discretionary
\nand not as a matter of course or must. In this connection, Mr. Salve has
\nreferred to the decision of this Court in Collector of Central Excise v.
\nM\/s Standard Motor Products,<\/a> [1989] 2 SCC 303 wherein this Court has
\nindicated that jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Article 136 of
\nConstitution in the matter of granting leave to appeal before it being
\ndiscretionary, stands as a separate class. Mr. Salve has submitted that
\napplication for special leave, therefore, cannot be equated with an appeal
\nas allowed since contemplated under Order 47 Rule l(a) C.P. Code as sought
\nto be contended. Mr. Salve has submitted that interpretation of procedural
\nlaw which debars availing court’s consideration for furtherance of the
\ncause of justice should be strictly construed. He has submitted that review
\napplications presented before the High Court after filing a special leave
\npetitions were maintainable and contentions to the contrary should not be
\ncountenanced.\n<\/p>\n
Referring to Order 6 to Rule 18 C.P. Code Mr. Salve has submitted that even
\nif it is assumed that the plaintiffs failed to bring about amendment of the
\nplaint within time, the suit should proceed with unamended plaint but
\ndismissal of the suit cannot be justified. Mrs. Salve has submitted
\nprocedural law must be applied for furtherance of justice and not for its
\nhindrance. In the instant case the High Court felt that the suit should not
\nhave been dismissed in the special facts of the case and therefore allowed
\nthe review applications. Such order, in any event, does not call for
\ninterference by this Court by granting special leave. He, therefore,
\nsubmits that special leave petitions should be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Ms. Ganguli, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondents
\nin one of the appeals (arising out of S.L.P. No. 6914 of 1994) has also
\nrefuted the contentions made by Sri Nariman and Sri Sanghi. He has strongly
\ncontended that the suit of the plaintiffs did not deserve to be dismissed
\non account of failure-by the solicitors to take appropriate steps in
\neffecting the amendment of the plaint. Mr. Ganguli has submitted that the
\nplaintiffs being not conversed with the special procedures in the carriage
\nof proceedings in the suit in the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of
\nthe Calcutta High Court engaged a reputed firm of solicitors. It is evident
\nthat the plaintiffs could not afford taking risk of getting the suit
\ndismissed by following dilatory tactics because the stake in the suit is
\nquite high for the plaintiffs. Mr. Ganguli has submitted that unfortunately
\nthe appeals were dismissed by the High Court by not appreciating that the
\nlaches and negligence were not directly attributable to the plaintiffs but
\nthey fell victim to laches and negligence of their solicitors. He has also
\nsubmitted that after the change of the solicitors, the new solicitors found
\nother relevant facts and circumstances which not being made known to the
\nplaintiffs, could not placed for court a consideration earlier. Such facts
\namply demonstrate the bonafide on the part of the plaintiffs in proceeding
\nwith the suit. Mr. Ganguli has also submitted that the High Court even
\nthough dismissed the appeals, considered such further materials in
\ndisposing review applications and became satisfied that the dismissal of
\nthe appeals was not warranted and the plaintiffs did not deserve to be
\nvictimised. The review applications were accordingly allowed.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Ganguli has submitted that the Court has always an anxiety to ensure
\nthat the justice does not get defeated in the vortex of technicality of
\nprocedural law. Mr. Ganguli has also submitted that application for special
\nleave to appeal before this Court cannot be treated as preferring an appeal
\nfor the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has
\nsubmitted that the remedy sought by making an application under Article 136
\nof the Constitution before this Court is an extra ordinary remedy and not a
\nremedy by way of preferring an appeal before this Court. In this
\nconnection, Mr. Ganguli has referred to a decision of this Court in Laxman
\nMaratrao Navakhare v. Keshavrao,<\/a> [1993] 2 SCC 270. In the said decision, it
\nhas been held by this Court that Article 136(1) of the Constitution confers
\non the Supreme Court overriding and extensive powers of granting special
\nleave to appeal. It does not confer a right to appeal. It confers a right
\nto apply for special leave to appeal which is in the discretion of the
\nCourt. The discretionary power under Article 136 cannot be construed as to
\nconfer a right of appeal where none exists. Although the power under
\nArticle 136 (1) is unfettered, but is cannot be held that after having
\nentertained a special leave petition against any final or interlocutory
\norder, the Supreme Court converts itself into a court of appeal for the
\nhearing of the dispute involved.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Ganguli has submitted that as the special leave petition stands
\nentirely on a different footing and it cannot be deemed to be an appeal
\nbefore a superior court, the plaintiffs had justification in not mentioning
\nthe factum of presenting special leave petitions before this Court in
\nreview applications. Such non-disclosure of the factum of presenting
\nspecial leave petitions before filing the review applications, therefore,
\ncannot be held to be a sharp practice designed to keep back from the High
\nCourt a relevant fact which was required to be considered in the context of
\nmaintainability of the review application. Mr. Ganguli has submitted that
\nwhen the High Court became satisfied that gross injustice was meted out the
\nplaintiffs for laches and negligence not attributable to them and on such
\nconsiderations restored the appeal by allowing the review applications,
\nthis Court, in its discretionary jurisdiction, should not interfere with
\nthe impugned order more so when such order has advanced the cause of
\njustice instead of hindering the same. Mr. Ganguli has, therefore,
\nsubmitted that the appeals should be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the orders
\ndismissing the appeals and also the impugned Judgment allowing the review
\napplications by the High Court and having given our anxious consideration
\nto the respective contentions of the learned Senior Counsel forcefully
\nplaced before us, it appears to us that the plaintiffs failed and neglected
\nto take proper steps in the carriage of proceedings of the suit. The
\nplaintiffs failed Suit No. 531 of 1981 in the ordinary original civil
\njurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. An application for interim
\ninjunction was made by the plaintiffs for restraining the defendants,
\nnamely, the vendors of the suit property from dealing with or disposal of
\nthe suit premises and on such application, an ad interim order was passed
\nin favour of the plaintiffs. On July 20, 1981, the interlocutory
\napplication appeared as New Motion when the defendants appeared and
\nsubmitted before the High Court that the suit premises had already been
\ntransferred to a third party, namely M\/s Kabari Pvt. Ltd.. The defendants
\n(vendors) also disclosed to the Court that by four separate deeds of
\nconveyance all dated July 6, 1981, the suit premises had been conveyed to
\nMs. Kabari Pvt. Ltd. As the property in question had been conveyed prior to
\nthe institution of the suit, the plaintiffs felt the need to implead M\/s
\nKabari Pvt. Ltd. also as a defendant in the said suit and they made an
\napplication for amendment of the plaint for incorporating facts not pleaded
\nand also for moulding the prayer. As far back as in July 1982, the Court,
\nafter hearing the parties, allowed an application for amendment of the
\nplaint and restrained M\/s. Kabari Pvt. Ltd. from alienating or encumbering
\nthe disputed premises. Pursuant to the leave granted for amendment of the
\nplaint, a writ of summons was directed to be issued on July 14, 1982 to M\/s
\nKabari Pvt. Ltd. It may be noted here that M\/s. Kabari Pvt. Ltd. instituted
\na suit for eviction of the plaintiffs in the Court of learned Subordinate
\nJudge at Alipore because the plaintiffs were in possession of the disputed
\nproperty as tenants. In view of the pendency of the said Suit No. 531 in
\nthe ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court wherein
\nthe purchaser M\/s Kabari Private Limited was restrained from alienating and
\nencumbering the disputed property, the suit for eviction was also
\ntransferred to the High Court. Such suit is also pending in the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
It is quite apparent, in the facts of the case, that the amendment which
\nwas sought for by the plaintiffs was required to be incorporated otherwise
\nno effective relief could be given to the plaintiffs in the said suit No.
\n531 of 1981. For effective relief in the said suit, the transfer of the
\ndisputed property in favour of M\/s. Kabari Pvt. Ltd. is required to be set
\naside. Otherwise, no decree for specific performance of contract for
\nselling the said property in favour of the plaintiffs can be passed. In the
\naforesaid facts, the amendment of the plaint is essential for the
\nmaintainability of the suit. The contention that the suit was not required
\nto be dismissed but the same may proceed without the amendment is
\nmisconceived and without any substance.\n<\/p>\n
Even if it is accepted that the plaintiffs having engaged a reputed firm of
\nsolicitors had justification in proceeding with the view that the carriage
\nof proceedings required to be taken in the suit must have been taken
\nproperly by their solicitors, there was no occasion for the plaintiffs to
\ndepend on the solicitors when on August 8, 1991 the plaintiffs had
\nadmittedly been informed by the solicitors that the suit had been placed in
\nthe scrutiny list for not taking appropriate steps in effecting the
\namendment during the long span of ten years. It is an admitted position
\nthat the plaintiffs were not only fully aware of such gross laches and
\nnegligence but according to the plaintiffs, they being aware of such laches
\nand negligence expressed shock and anguish for the inaction on the part of
\ntheir solicitors. After August 8, 1981 the said suit appeared before the
\nSenior Master of the High Court on a number of occasion but even then
\napplication for extension of time for effecting amendment was not made by
\nthe plaintiffs immediately. It is only on October 10,1991, such an
\napplication was moved in Court but such application was rightly dismissed
\nby the Court on March 13, 1992. In our view, Mr. Nariman and Mr. Sanghi are
\nfully justified in contending that when the plaintiffs admittedly came to
\nknow that their solicitors miserably failed to take appropriate steps in
\nthe suit for which the suit was liable to be dismissed, even then they did
\nnot take diligent steps.\n<\/p>\n
The plaintiffs also did not change their solicitors even when the suit was
\ndismissed. On the contrary, they retained the solicitors for the purpose of
\npreferring the appeals, both against the order dismissing the application
\nfor extension of time and also against the order of dismissal of the suit
\nitself. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the
\nbogey of laches and negligence on the part of the solicitors of the
\nplaintiffs by keeping the innocent plaintiffs in darkness and alleged
\ndiscovery of further materials only after the change of solicitors has been
\nraised designedly, does not appear to be ill founded. It did not appeal to
\nthe High Court that the plaintiffs became victim of the alleged laches and
\nnegligence on the part of the solicitors and they had been kept in darkness
\nabout such laches and negligence despite their best intention to be
\ndiligent and sincere in the carriage of proceedings of the said suit. On a
\nclear finding that the plaintiffs were guilty of gross negligence in the
\ncarriage of proceedings in the said suit, both the appeals preferred by the
\nplaintiffs appellants were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High
\nCourt. It is quite apparent and evident that in view of clear findings of
\nthe High Court about gross negligence and laches of the plaintiffs in
\ndismissing the said appeals. The plaintiffs, as a last resort, filed
\nspecial leave petitions before this Court and did not think of filing the
\nreview applications.\n<\/p>\n
Considering the facts of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that only
\nat a later stage, the plaintiffs filed the review applications before the
\nHigh Court on false and fabricated premises that after change of the
\nsolicitors, they could come to .know about some relevant facts which could
\nnot be placed before the High Court on earlier occasion and accordingly
\nreview applications had been filed. It appears to us that at no point of
\ntime, the plaintiffs intended to change the solicitors and the said
\nsolicitors were retained not only for the purpose of preferring the appeals
\nbut they continued to act as solicitors of the plaintiffs till appeals were
\ndismissed on contest. The contention of the appellants before us that the
\nplaintiffs designedly changed the solicitors to put forth false and
\nfabricated plea of discovery of some relevant materials only after change
\nof solicitors. In an attempt to make some ground for review applications,
\nis wholly justified. In our view, in any event, all relevant facts could be
\nknown to the plaintiffs if they had intended to know such facts seriously.
\nThere was also no impediment to change the solicitors earlier. In the facts
\nof the case, it appears to us that there was no genuine occasion for filing
\nthe review applications. Such review application based on false and
\nfabricated premises deserved to be dismissed in limine. The impugned order
\nallowing the review applications has occasioned a grave failure of justice.
\nWe, therefore, feel no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order on
\nmerits by allowing the appeals.\n<\/p>\n
In our view there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the
\nappellants that the expression “from which an appeal is allowed” appearing
\nin Clause (a) of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, should be
\nconstrued liberally keeping in mind the underlying principle involved in
\nOrder 47 Rule 1 (a) that before making the review applications no superior
\ncourt has been moved for getting the self same relief, so that for the self
\nsame relief two parallel proceedings before two forum are not taken.\n<\/p>\n
As we have held that applications for review are liable to be dismissed
\neven on merits, the question of maintainability of the said applications
\nfor review before the High Court on account of filing the special petitions
\nassailing the review applications, need not be gone into by further
\nscrutiny as to whether application for leave to appeal under Article 136 of
\nthe Constitution stand on such a separate footing that it should not be
\ntreated to be an appeal as contemplated under Clause (a) of  order 47 Rule
\n1 of the Code of Civil Procedure even for the purpose of giving liberal
\nconstruction to the expression “appeal allowed”. Such question, therefore,
\nis kept open to be considered in an appropriate Case. In the result, we set
\naside the impugned order of the High Court allowing the review applications
\nby allowing these appeals with cost, assessed at Rs. 10,000 for each of
\nthese appeals.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kabari Pvt. Ltd vs Shivnath Shroff And Ors on 1 December, 1995 Bench: G.N. Ray, Dr. A.S. Anand CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 11517 of 1995 PETITIONER: KABARI PVT. LTD. RESPONDENT: SHIVNATH SHROFF AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/12\/1995 BENCH: G.N. RAY & DR. A.S. ANAND JUDGMENT: JUDGEMENT 1995 SUPP. (6) SCR […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15769","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKabari Pvt. Ltd vs Shivnath Shroff And Ors on 1 December, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabari-pvt-ltd-vs-shivnath-shroff-and-ors-on-1-december-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kabari Pvt. Ltd vs Shivnath Shroff And Ors on 1 December, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabari-pvt-ltd-vs-shivnath-shroff-and-ors-on-1-december-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1995-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-03T08:22:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"35 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kabari-pvt-ltd-vs-shivnath-shroff-and-ors-on-1-december-1995#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kabari-pvt-ltd-vs-shivnath-shroff-and-ors-on-1-december-1995\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kabari Pvt. Ltd vs Shivnath Shroff And Ors on 1 December, 1995\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-03T08:22:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kabari-pvt-ltd-vs-shivnath-shroff-and-ors-on-1-december-1995\"},\"wordCount\":6988,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kabari-pvt-ltd-vs-shivnath-shroff-and-ors-on-1-december-1995#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kabari-pvt-ltd-vs-shivnath-shroff-and-ors-on-1-december-1995\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kabari-pvt-ltd-vs-shivnath-shroff-and-ors-on-1-december-1995\",\"name\":\"Kabari Pvt. Ltd vs Shivnath Shroff And Ors on 1 December, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-03T08:22:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kabari-pvt-ltd-vs-shivnath-shroff-and-ors-on-1-december-1995#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kabari-pvt-ltd-vs-shivnath-shroff-and-ors-on-1-december-1995\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kabari-pvt-ltd-vs-shivnath-shroff-and-ors-on-1-december-1995#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kabari Pvt. Ltd vs Shivnath Shroff And Ors on 1 December, 1995\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kabari Pvt. Ltd vs Shivnath Shroff And Ors on 1 December, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabari-pvt-ltd-vs-shivnath-shroff-and-ors-on-1-december-1995","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kabari Pvt. Ltd vs Shivnath Shroff And Ors on 1 December, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabari-pvt-ltd-vs-shivnath-shroff-and-ors-on-1-december-1995","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1995-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-03T08:22:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"35 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabari-pvt-ltd-vs-shivnath-shroff-and-ors-on-1-december-1995#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabari-pvt-ltd-vs-shivnath-shroff-and-ors-on-1-december-1995"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kabari Pvt. Ltd vs Shivnath Shroff And Ors on 1 December, 1995","datePublished":"1995-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-03T08:22:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabari-pvt-ltd-vs-shivnath-shroff-and-ors-on-1-december-1995"},"wordCount":6988,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabari-pvt-ltd-vs-shivnath-shroff-and-ors-on-1-december-1995#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabari-pvt-ltd-vs-shivnath-shroff-and-ors-on-1-december-1995","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabari-pvt-ltd-vs-shivnath-shroff-and-ors-on-1-december-1995","name":"Kabari Pvt. Ltd vs Shivnath Shroff And Ors on 1 December, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-03T08:22:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabari-pvt-ltd-vs-shivnath-shroff-and-ors-on-1-december-1995#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabari-pvt-ltd-vs-shivnath-shroff-and-ors-on-1-december-1995"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabari-pvt-ltd-vs-shivnath-shroff-and-ors-on-1-december-1995#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kabari Pvt. Ltd vs Shivnath Shroff And Ors on 1 December, 1995"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15769","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15769"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15769\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15769"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15769"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15769"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}