{"id":189710,"date":"2000-12-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-12-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/western-press-pvt-ltd-mumbai-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-6-december-2000"},"modified":"2017-06-30T18:59:15","modified_gmt":"2017-06-30T13:29:15","slug":"western-press-pvt-ltd-mumbai-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-6-december-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/western-press-pvt-ltd-mumbai-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-6-december-2000","title":{"rendered":"Western Press Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs The Custodian & Ors on 6 December, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Western Press Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs The Custodian & Ors on 6 December, 2000<\/div>\n
Author: Raju<\/div>\n
Bench: B.N.Kripal, Doraswamyy Raju, Brijesh Kumar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 2770 2000\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nWESTERN PRESS PVT LTD., MUMBAI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE CUSTODIAN & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t06\/12\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nB.N.Kripal, Doraswamyy Raju, Brijesh Kumar\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
Raju, J.\n<\/p>\n
L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J<\/p>\n
      The appellant before us was the unsuccessful applicant
\nin Miscellaneous Application No.2 of 1999 before the Special
\nCourt  (Trial  of  offences   relating\tto  transactions  in
\nsecurities)  at\t Bombay\t (called  for  convenience  as\tthe
\nSpecial Court).\t The appeal has been filed under Section 10
\nof  the\t Special  Court\t (Trial\t  of  offences\trelating  to
\ntransactions  in securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred
\nto  as\tthe  Act) against the order of the  Special  Court
\ndated  16.2.2000, whereunder the relief sought to set  aside
\nthe  Minutes  of the Order dated 5.7.1995  in  Miscellaneous
\nPetition  No.30\t of  1995 and the Order dated  24.9.1997  in
\nMiscellaneous Application No.  280 of 1997 earlier passed by
\nthe Special Court insofar as it related to the appellant and
\nthe  premises of the appellant situated at Regent  Chambers,
\nNariman\t Point,\t Bombay-400 021, on 2nd floor  bearing\tunit
\nNos.  3 & 4 admeasuring approximately 2030 sq.\tft.  came to
\nbe rejected.\n<\/p>\n
      The relevant facts insofar as they are necessary for a
\nproper\tappreciation of the issues raised before us, need  a
\nbrief  mention\tbefore\tadverting to the  grievance  of\t the
\nparties.  M\/s Dhanraj Mills Private Ltd., the 5th respondent
\nin  this appeal, is a notified party under the Act.  On\t the
\ninformation  furnished\tby  the Income Tax  Department\tthat
\npublic\tmoney belonging to Banks and Financial\tInstitutions
\nhave  been  siphoned out into the accounts of  the  notified
\nparty  and which, in turn, came to be successively  siphoned
\nto  Kenilworth\tInvestment  Company Private  Ltd.,  the\t 6th
\nrespondent herein, and from them to CIFCO Properties Private
\nLtd.,  CIFCO  Finance Ltd.  and M\/s  Champaklal\t Investments
\n(Respondents 2, 3, 4 & 6), the Custodian filed Miscellaneous
\nPetition  No.\t30  of 1995 against all\t those\trespondents.
\nWhen the petition reached the stage of hearing by consent of
\nparties,  Minutes  of  the Order dated 5.7.1995 came  to  be
\nfiled  and  recorded  as  per\twhich,\tamong  other  things
\nKenilworth  Investment\tCompany\t submitted to  a  decree  in
\nfavour\t of  Dhanraj  Mills  Private   Ltd.,  in  a  sum  of
\nRs.11,82,81,316\/- with interest @ 20% per annum from 24.4.92
\ntill  date  of\tpayment\t and CIFCO Group  of  Companies\t and
\nChampaklal  Investment Company Private Ltd., submitted to  a
\ndecree\tin  favour  of the 6th respondent and  the  decretal
\ndebts  also  stood  charged in favour of  Dhanraj  Mills  to
\nreceive payment from Kenilworth Investment.\n<\/p>\n
      Clause  7\t of  the Minutes of the Order  dated  5.7.95
\ndeclared  the ownership of the 3rd respondent herein, in the
\npremises  bearing  unit\t Nos.  2, 5, 6, 7 and  8  at  Regent
\nChambers,  Nariman  Point, Bombay, in 2nd floor\t admeasuring
\n4931  sq.  ft and unit No.5 in ground floor admeasuring\t 451
\nsq.  ft.  as well as the residential flat bearing unit No.36
\nin  3rd\t floor of Anita Apartment in Mount Pleasant Road  at
\nMalabar Hills admeasuring 575 sq.  ft.\tClauses 8, 12 and 13
\non which both parties fixed their hopes read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      8.   The\tRespondent No.2 declares that  one  Western
\nPress Pvt.  Ltd.  (formerly known as Jayakrishna Pvt.  Ltd.)
\nis  the owner of the premises admeasuring approximately 2030
\nsq.   ft.  and described in Schedule A-3 hereunder  written.
\nThe  said  premises are used and occupied by the  Respondent
\nNos.   2 and 3 along with the said Western Press Pvt.\tLtd.
\nThe  Respondent Nos.  2 and 3 declare and undertake to\tthis
\nHonble\tCourt that they will not claim any right, title\t or
\ninterest  in the said premises mentioned in Schedule  A-3.
\nThe  respondent\t Nos.  2, 3 and the said Western Press\tPvt.
\nLtd.\tundertake  to  this   Honble  Court  that   pending
\nsatisfaction of the decree the Respondent Nos.\t2, 3 and the
\nsaid  Western Press Pvt.  Ltd.\twill not alienate,  encumber
\nor  part  with\tpossession of or create third  party  right,
\ntitle or interest in the said property described in Schedule
\nA-3  hereto  or any part thereof, till the decree herein  is
\nmarked satisfied.\n<\/p>\n
      12.   In\tthe  event  of the  decree  herein  becoming
\nexecutable  against  the  Respondent Nos.1 and 2 or  3,\t the
\nRespondent  No.2 and the Companies listed in Schedule C as
\nwell  as  the  said Western Press Pvt.\tLtd.  and  the\tsaid
\nemployee  occupying the flat as per Schedule A-2,  undertake
\nto  this Honble Court that on sale in execution being  held
\nand sanctioned by this Honble Court the Respondent No.2 and
\nthe  said companies mentioned in the Schedule B hereto shall
\nhand  over  the\t possession  of the  premises  mentioned  in
\nSchedule A-1 to A-3 hereto to the purchaser.\n<\/p>\n
      13.   The companies mentioned in the Schedules B and
\nC  and\tthe said employee will within one week from  today
\nfile  separate affidavits declaring that they have no right,
\ntitle  or  interest in the premises mentioned  in  Schedules
\nA-1  to A-3, hereto as also giving the undertaking to this
\nHonble\tCourt to vacate the premises in their occupation in
\nthe event happening as stated above.\n<\/p>\n
      Pursuant\t to   the  above,   the\t Chairman   of\t the
\nappellant-company  Mr.\t Milan\tDalal filed  on\t 28.7.95  an
\naffidavit  of undertaking not to alienate, encumber or\tpart
\nwith  possession  of or create third party right,  title  or
\ninterest  in  the  aforesaid   property\t of  the  appellant-
\ncompany,  till the decree is satisfied and in case of events
\nhappening as provided in Clauses 12 and\/or 13 of the Minutes
\nof  the Order further undertaking to vacate the premises  in
\nthe occupation of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
      Since  there  was\t a   default,  the  Custodian  filed
\nMiscellaneous Application No.280 of 1987 by way of execution
\nproceedings  against the respondent-companies which suffered
\na decree (of course not including or specifically initiating
\nagainst\t the  appellant and their property) and the  Special
\nCourt  passed  an order on 24.9.97 appointing a Receiver  to
\ntake  possession  and to dispose of the properties by  sale.
\nAt  this  stage, apparently apprehending similar  course  of
\nproceedings  for  execution  by the  Custodian\tagainst\t the
\nproperties  in\tquestion  of  the  appellant,  Miscellaneous
\nApplication  No.2  of 1999 came to be filed for the  reliefs
\nnoticed\t supra.\t The sum and substance of the claim in\tthis
\napplication  of\t the appellant was (a) that  the  appellant-
\ncompany is the absolute owner of the properties in question,\n<\/p>\n
(b)  that  they\t have  not   created  any  interest  in\t the
\nproperties  in favour of the 3rd respondent herein, (c) that
\nthe  undertaking given on behalf of the appellant was  wrong
\nand  unauthorised,  (d) that no such undertaking could\thave
\nbeen given by any one else in respect of the property of the
\nappellant  unless duly authorised by the company (e) that at
\nno  point  of time the appellant was a party to any  of\t the
\nproceedings or it was represented by any counsel or was ever
\nbeen  put on notice of the orders to be passed affecting its
\nrights\/interest,  (f)  that  the   appellant  is  neither  a
\njudgment debtor nor it claims through a judgment debtor, (g)
\nthat it neither agreed to give guarantee nor stand as surety
\nfor  the  payment  of the debts of the judgment\t debtor\t and
\nconsequently  the  properties  of the  appellant  cannot  be
\nattached  or proceeded against in any manner for realisation
\nof the dues under the decree in question.\n<\/p>\n
      The  Special  Court, after a careful consideration  of
\nthe respective contentions of parties, held that the Minutes
\nof the order dated 5.7.95 covered also units 3 & 4 belonging
\nto  the\t appellant and it would be open to the Custodian  to
\nprefer an appropriate application for execution, as was done
\nin  the\t case of units 2, 5 to 8 as and when required.\t The
\nSpecial\t Court\talso  held that the said two  units  of\t the
\nappellant   also  constituted  an   integral  part  of\t the
\ncompromise.   As  regards  the\tground based  upon  want  of
\nregistration,  the  Special Court was of the view  that\t the
\nminutes\t  of  the  order   stood  excepted  from  compulsory
\nregistration  and that in any event in view of Section 41 of
\nthe  Maharashtra  Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 it  stood
\nalso  exempted, having regard to the fact that the interests
\nof  the\t appellant in the properties being merely that of  a
\ntenant\tin  co-partnership housing society and the right  to
\noccupy\tthe flats flowing only from the ownership of shares,
\nthe  same  cannot  be considered to be\timmovable  property.
\nConsequently,  the  application of the appellant came to  be
\ndismissed.  Hence, this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      Dr.   Rajeev Dhavan, learned senior counsel  appearing
\nfor  the appellant, strenuously contended, while reiterating
\nthe stand taken before the Special Court, that the appellant
\nis  an\tutter  third  party to the  proceedings\t before\t the
\nSpecial Court it being neither a notified party nor claiming
\nthrough\t any of the parties and, as a fact, also not  having
\nbeen  arrayed  as  one such, its properties cannot  be\tmade
\nliable for the recovery of the dues in question.  It is also
\nfurther\t contended  that  neither  the\tappellant  gave\t any
\nundertaking  nor  it stood as surety for the realisation  of
\nthe  amount secured in the minutes of the order dated 5.7.95
\nand,  therefore,  cannot  be  said to  have  encumbered\t its
\nproperty   by  any  specific  thing   in  writing  and\t the
\nundertaking,  if  any,\tgiven on its behalf is not  only  an
\nunauthorised  one not binding upon the appellant but that it
\nhas  been  given  also under a mistaken view of\t facts\tand,
\ntherefore, the same could not adversely affect the rights of
\nthe  appellant.\t  Argued the learned senior counsel  further
\nthat  in  the  absence of registration\tas  envisaged  under
\nSection 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act, it cannot in any
\nmanner\taffect\tthe  rights of the  appellant  in  immovable
\nproperty  and  that  the   appellants  property\t cannot\t be
\nproceeded  against.  Shri Shiraz Rustomjee, learned  counsel
\nfor  the  Custodian,  while  drawing  inspiration  from\t the
\nreasoning  of the Special Court, endeavoured to sustain\t the
\nconclusions  arrived  at  by the Special Court.\t It  is\t the
\ncontention  of\tthe learned counsel that the very object  of
\nthe consent order passed on 5.7.95 was to effectively ensure
\nthe  recovery  of the dues and it is too late in the day  to
\nretrace steps to disown responsibility and liability in this
\nregard.\t  The  case on hand is said to squarely\t fall  under
\nSection\t 17  (2) (vi) of the Registration Act and  that\t the
\nattempt\t of  the appellant is to somehow delay\tindefinitely
\nrealisation of the dues.  The learned counsel on either side
\nalso  elaborately  invited our attention to portions of\t the
\norder  under  challenge\t to  substantiate  their  respective
\nstand.\n<\/p>\n
      We  have\tcarefully considered the submissions of\t the
\nlearned\t counsel  appearing  on either side.  In  our  view,
\napart  from the lack of merits in the challenge made to\t the
\nwell  considered order of the Special Court, the appellants
\ncase  does  not merit countenance in our hands\tfor  another
\nreason\talso.\tThe parties before the Special Court  having
\nconsented  and\tinvited\t the Court to pass the\torder  dated
\n5.7.95\tand obtained benefits by giving undertaking of their
\nown  and on behalf of the appellant-company, ought not to be
\nallowed\t to  take shelter under technicalities to  overreach
\nthe  Court, which believed the parties and counsel appearing
\non  their  behalf and acted in good faith by  accepting\t the
\nterms suggested by the parties themselves.\n<\/p>\n
      The  questions, which loom large for consideration  in
\nthis  appeal,  are  as to what are  the\t legal\tconsequences
\nflowing\t from  the consent order of the Special Court  dated
\n5.7.95\tand  the  affidavit  filed by Mr.   Milan  Dalal  on
\n28.7.95\t as  the Chairman of the appellant-company?  and  do
\nthey   suffer  any  legal  infirmities\t such  as  want\t  of
\nregistration, want of authority and mistake of fact so as to
\nrender them either non- est or unenforceable?  If it is held
\nthat  the consent order dated 5.7.95 and the affidavit dated
\n28.7.95\t are binding upon not only the parties but upon\t the
\nappellant,  as\tone  who has undertook to abide\t by  certain
\nconsequences and such an undertaking was given to secure any
\nor  some benefit for any one or more of the parties from the
\nCourt,\tthe  facts such as the appellant not being itself  a
\nparty  in the proceedings before the Court and it was only a
\nthird  party  and  that the property in question is  of\t the
\nappellant and that the appellant is neither a notified party
\nnor one claiming through such notified party or the judgment
\ndebtor\tpale  into  insignificance and are  rendered  wholly
\nirrelevant in determining the actual issues arising.\n<\/p>\n
      The  Minutes  of\tthe order dated 5.7.95\tcame  to  be
\npassed\tas  a consent order, decreeing for the\trecovery  of
\nRs.11,82,81,316\/-  with\t interest  @ 20% and the  manner  in
\nwhich\tsuch  decree  has  to  be  satisfied  as   well\t  as
\nproportionate liabilities, inter se, of the parties thereto.
\nThe  permission\t for payment in instalments sought  for\t has
\nbeen  countenanced.  Clauses 8, 12 and 13 make it abundantly
\nclear  that  Respondents  2 and 3 before the  Special  Court
\ndeclared  that\tthey  will  not claim any  right,  title  or
\ninterest   in\tthe  premises  in  question   (Schedule\t  A3
\nproperties) and Respondents 2 and 3 before the Special Court
\nas well as the appellant undertook to the Special Court, not
\nto  alienate, encumber or part with possession of or  create
\nthird party right, title or interest in or over the Schedule
\nA3  properties\tor any part thereof pending satisfaction  of
\nthe  decree  passed  therein.  The  consent  decretal  order
\nfurther\t stipulated that in the event of the decree becoming
\nexecutable  the Companies including the appellant  undertook
\nto  hand  over\tpossession of the  properties  mentioned  in
\nSchedules  A1 to A3 to the purchaser, on the sale being held
\nand  sanctioned\t by the Special Court.\tIn carrying out\t the
\ndirections  contained  in the above consent decretal  order,
\nMr.   Milan  B.\t Dalal, Chairman of  the  appellant-company,
\nfiled  the required affidavit of undertaking dated  28.7.95.
\nIn  the\t said affidavit of undertaking, while affirming\t the
\nfactum\tof  ownership  of Western Press Pvt.  Ltd.,  to\t the
\nproperty  in question and noticing the factual position that
\nthe  said  property is being used and occupied by M\/s  CIFCO
\nLtd.   and  CIFCO  Finance  Ltd.,  it  has  been  stated  in
\nunmistakable terms in paragraphs 2 and 3 as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
      2.   In  terms of the Minutes of the order dated\t5th
\nJuly,  1995,  passed by the Honble Special  Court,  Western
\nPress  Pvt.  Ltd., do hereby undertake that not to alienate,
\nencumber  or  part with possession of or create third  party
\nright,\ttitle or interest in the aforesaid premises till the
\ndecree is marked satisfied.\n<\/p>\n
      3.   On  behalf of the Company, I hereby undertake  to
\nthis  Honble Court that in the events happening as provided
\nin  Clauses  12\t and  13 of the said  Minutes,\tthe  company
\nundertake to vacate the premises in their occupation.\n<\/p>\n
      Though for fixing liability as such the mere fact that
\nthe  judgment  debtor  companies and  the  appellant-company
\nbeing  part  of\t the  same  group  of  companies  completely
\ncontrolled by Dalal family and its group concerns may not be
\nsufficient  as such, the said factual information indicating
\nthat  the  cluster  of companies is a mere cloak  for  these
\ngroups\twill  be  a just and relevant piece of\tmaterial  in
\nappreciating  the foul play and attempts on the part of\t the
\nDirectors  of  the appellant and their opportunistic  stands
\nadopted,  as  it  suits them, from time to  time,  not\tonly
\nbefore\tthe Court below but even in this Court.\t Mr.Milan B.
\nDalal  has  been found to be and seems to have\tbeen  openly
\nallowed\t by  others  without  demur to\tliberally  play\t the
\nmultifarious  roles he held in different companies of  Dalal
\ngroup  families.  Though the authority of Milan B.  Dalal as
\nChairman  of the appellant-company was seriously  questioned
\nby  another Director of the appellant at a later stage,\t the
\nrejoinder  filed  in this appeal by the very same  Milan  B.
\nDalal,\tin  support of the stand of the\t appellant-  company
\npatently  betrays  the sinister motive of all those who\t are
\nfighting  under the shadow of the appellant-company  harping
\nupon  some  technicalities of law or otherwise unmindful  of
\nthe fact realities starring at them, who cannot disown their
\nown  responsibilities too in the matter.  We are constrained
\nto  observe that both the parties as well as their  advisers
\nwho have been responsible for the respective roles they seem
\nto  have  played  in misguiding and misleading\tthe  Special
\nCourt  to pass a particular order, assuring the existence of
\ncertain\t obvious  facts, ought not to be allowed  to  either
\nretrace their steps or derive, retain or enjoy the fruits of
\ntheir  own  machinations and manipulations by  now  assuming
\ndifferent   postures   and  asserting\tfacts\twhich\tthey
\ndeliberately  withheld\tfrom the Court and were found to  be
\ngiving\ta different picture altogether when such orders came
\nto  be\tpassed.\t  This condemnable conduct  of\tthe  parties
\nalone,\tin our view, is more than sufficient to reject their
\nclaims\tnow  made  in  desperateness   under  the  cover  of
\npretended and invented illegalities.\n<\/p>\n
      On  a  careful  consideration  of\t the  events   which
\noccurred  before the Special Court which made the said Court
\nto   believe  the  existence  of   certain  facts   on\t the
\nrepresentations\t made  before it, the orders passed and\t the
\naffidavits found and noticed to have been filed from time to
\ntime  before the Special Court, the Special Court could\t not
\nbe  either faulted for its conclusions or that the  specific
\nfindings  arrived  at  that the consent order  dated  5.7.95
\ntaken  together\t with  the affidavit  of  undertaking  dated
\n28.7.95\t covered  within  its  fold   the  property  of\t the
\nappellant-company in question for being proceeded against in
\nexecution of the decree passed for recovering the amount due
\nas  declared in the consent order dated 5.7.95, could not be
\nsaid   to  be  vitiated\t in   any  manner   warranting\t our
\ninterference.  Consequently, it would be permissible for the
\nCustodian to proceed against the property comprised in Units
\n3 and 4 belonging to the appellant- company also by means of
\nan  appropriate execution application as and when he  choose
\nto  do so.  The plea of lack of authority in Milan B.  Dalal
\nto bind the appellant needs mention only to be rejected even
\nfor   the   simple  reason  that   the\tDirectors   of\t the
\nappellant-company,  who allowed Milan B.  Dalal a free\thand
\nas  Chairman  of  the appellant- company to  deal  with\t the
\nmatter, cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold as it suits
\nthem.\tEqually\t untenable is the pretended mistake of\tfact
\nwhich,\tin  our view, is nothing but a self-serving  attempt
\nfound  to  be made as a pure afterthought to wriggle out  of
\nthe  lawful  commitments  made and retrace the\tposition  in
\nwhich  the Directors of the company have allowed  themselves
\nto  be landed in.  So far as the challenge based on the want
\nof  registration under Section 17(1) (b) of the Registration
\nAct  is\t concerned,  we\t are of the view that  the  same  is
\nneither\t genuine nor has any merit whatsoever or capable  of
\nbeing  countenanced  at our hands.  The reasons assigned  by
\nthe Court below to reject the said plea cannot be considered
\nto be either unjust or untenable.  Even otherwise, a careful
\nanalysis and consideration of the consent order dated 5.7.95
\nas  also the affidavit of undertaking dated 28.7.95 made  in
\nthis  case  disclose  no intention, per se,  to\t purport  or
\noperate\t to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish  in
\npresent\t or in future any right, title or interest,  whether
\nvested\tor contingent in the immovable property of the value
\nof  Rs.\t  100 and upwards.  On the other hand, the terms  as
\nwell  as the tenure of the above proceedings make clear\t the
\ndominant  intention  and  purpose of them to  be  merely  an
\nundertaking given by a third party to the proceedings to the
\nCourt  to  abide  by a particular course of  action  if\t the
\njudgment-debtor\t fails to satisfy the decree.  Even in cases
\nof  such  default by the judgment-debtor in this  case,\t the
\nundertaking  as well as the consent decree only enables\t the
\nCustodian  to  initiate\t execution proceedings\tagainst\t the
\nproperties  in question of the appellant- company and it  is
\nonly  in the event of such sale, the question of coming into
\nexistence  any\tdocument  which\t  would\t require  compulsory
\nregistration under Section 17 of the Act would arise and not
\nat  this  stage.   In  substance and effect  what  has\tbeen
\nundertaken to the Court is to preserve the properties intact
\nfor  being  proceeded  against in a  given  eventuality\t and
\ndeliver\t peaceful possession of the property in the event of
\nsuch  action becoming necessary.  Declaration or undertaking
\nconceding such liberty of action cannot be construed to fall
\nunder  clause (b) of Section 17 (1) of the Registration Act.
\nIt is important to note that both the consent decree as well
\nas the undertaking do not, by itself, envisage the execution
\nof  any\t deed or document also to create,  declare,  assign,
\nlimit  or  extinguish, whether in present or in\t future\t any
\nright, title or interest whether vested or contingent of the
\nvalue  of  Rs.100  or upwards in  immovable  property.\t The
\nconsent\t order\tas also the undertaking given in  this\tcase
\nwould  squarely\t fall within the exempted category  of\t`any
\ndecree or order of the Court envisaged under Section 17 (2)\n<\/p>\n
(vi)  and take it outside the excepted category of cases for
\nthe  simple reason that it does not deal with, as such,\t any
\nimmovable  property envisaged in the manner of clause (b) of
\nSection\t 17  (1)  of  the Registration Act.   In  the  first
\ninstance, the decree\/order in question does not comprise any
\nimmovable  property as such.  In any event, in a matter like
\nthe  one before us where the consent order which came to  be
\npassed\ton  agreement  as well as the undertaking  given  in
\npursuance  thereof,  was  an undertaking to the\t Court,\t the
\nwords  subject-matter of the suit need not be confined\tto
\nthe  subject-matter of the plaint or subject- matter of\t the
\ndispute\t alone, but would include all that which is made  to
\nbecome\tpart  of  the proceedings in order  to\tfinally\t and
\neffectively  settle  all the disputes between  the  parties.
\nShorn  of all these unnecessary controversies now raised, we
\nare  also  of  the  view that in a case\t where\tan  item  of
\nproperty is referred to in an undertaking given to the Court
\nas  one\t which can be proceeded against in the event of\t the
\njudgment-  debtor failing to pay the decretal amount  within
\nthe  stipulated\t time, the immovable property does  not\t get
\nipso  facto  affected  or  suffer in anyone  of\t the  manner
\nenvisaged  under Section 17 (1) so as to require  compulsory
\nregistration.\n<\/p>\n
      That  apart,  the provisions contained in Section\t 145
\nCPC  also would enure to the benefit of the Court as well as
\nthe   Custodian\t  to  proceed\tagainst\t the  appellant\t  in
\nenforcement  of the undertaking given to the Court and there
\nare  no merits in the contentions sought to be urged to\t the
\ncontrary.  For all the reasons stated above, we see no merit
\nwhatsoever  in\tthe above appeal.  The appeal  is  dismissed
\nwith  costs  quantified\t at Rs.25,000\/- to be  paid  to\t the
\nCustodian.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Western Press Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs The Custodian & Ors on 6 December, 2000 Author: Raju Bench: B.N.Kripal, Doraswamyy Raju, Brijesh Kumar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2770 2000 PETITIONER: WESTERN PRESS PVT LTD., MUMBAI Vs. RESPONDENT: THE CUSTODIAN & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/12\/2000 BENCH: B.N.Kripal, Doraswamyy Raju, Brijesh Kumar JUDGMENT: […]<\/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-189710","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nWestern Press Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs The Custodian & Ors on 6 December, 2000 - 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\/western-press-pvt-ltd-mumbai-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-6-december-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Western Press Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs The Custodian & Ors on 6 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/western-press-pvt-ltd-mumbai-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-6-december-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-12-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-30T13:29:15+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/western-press-pvt-ltd-mumbai-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-6-december-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/western-press-pvt-ltd-mumbai-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-6-december-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Western Press Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs The Custodian & Ors on 6 December, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-12-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-30T13:29:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/western-press-pvt-ltd-mumbai-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-6-december-2000\"},\"wordCount\":3722,\"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\\\/western-press-pvt-ltd-mumbai-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-6-december-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/western-press-pvt-ltd-mumbai-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-6-december-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/western-press-pvt-ltd-mumbai-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-6-december-2000\",\"name\":\"Western Press Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs The Custodian & Ors on 6 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-12-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-30T13:29:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/western-press-pvt-ltd-mumbai-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-6-december-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/western-press-pvt-ltd-mumbai-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-6-december-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/western-press-pvt-ltd-mumbai-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-6-december-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Western Press Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs The Custodian & Ors on 6 December, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Western Press Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs The Custodian & Ors on 6 December, 2000 - 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\/western-press-pvt-ltd-mumbai-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-6-december-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Western Press Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs The Custodian & Ors on 6 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/western-press-pvt-ltd-mumbai-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-6-december-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-12-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-30T13:29:15+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/western-press-pvt-ltd-mumbai-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-6-december-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/western-press-pvt-ltd-mumbai-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-6-december-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Western Press Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs The Custodian & Ors on 6 December, 2000","datePublished":"2000-12-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-30T13:29:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/western-press-pvt-ltd-mumbai-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-6-december-2000"},"wordCount":3722,"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\/western-press-pvt-ltd-mumbai-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-6-december-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/western-press-pvt-ltd-mumbai-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-6-december-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/western-press-pvt-ltd-mumbai-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-6-december-2000","name":"Western Press Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs The Custodian & Ors on 6 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-12-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-30T13:29:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/western-press-pvt-ltd-mumbai-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-6-december-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/western-press-pvt-ltd-mumbai-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-6-december-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/western-press-pvt-ltd-mumbai-vs-the-custodian-ors-on-6-december-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Western Press Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs The Custodian & Ors on 6 December, 2000"}]},{"@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\/189710","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=189710"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189710\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=189710"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=189710"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=189710"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}