{"id":249251,"date":"1998-03-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-03-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/silverline-forum-pvt-ltd-vs-rajiv-trust-and-another-on-31-march-1998"},"modified":"2018-09-06T13:26:00","modified_gmt":"2018-09-06T07:56:00","slug":"silverline-forum-pvt-ltd-vs-rajiv-trust-and-another-on-31-march-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/silverline-forum-pvt-ltd-vs-rajiv-trust-and-another-on-31-march-1998","title":{"rendered":"Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd vs Rajiv Trust And Another on 31 March, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd vs Rajiv Trust And Another on 31 March, 1998<\/div>\n
Author: Thomas<\/div>\n
Bench: K.T. Thomas, S. Rajendra Babu<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSILVERLINE FORUM PVT. LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAJIV TRUST AND ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t31\/03\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nK.T. THOMAS, S. RAJENDRA BABU\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nThomas, J.\n<\/p>\n
     Special leave granted .\n<\/p>\n
     A sub-tenant,  who\t was  not  party  to  a\t decree\t for
\neviction, resisted  execution of  the decree  and the  court
\nordered an  inquiry under  Section 151\tof the Code of Civil
\nProcedure (‘Code’  for short).\tThe High  Court of  Calcutta
\nupheld that order and that is challenged in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     The suit  property is  a flat  in “Harrington  Mansion”
\nsituated on  an important  road at  Calcutta. It  was in the
\nownership of  one Arun Kumar Jalan. He tenanted the premises
\nto Rajiv  Trust (first respondent) on 15-05-1975, who sublet
\nthe building  to a  company M\/s.  Accounting and Secretarial
\nService Private\t Limited (which will hereinafter he referred
\nto as  “the first  sub-tenant”). Subsequently the first sub-
\ntenant created\tanother sub-tenancy  under it  in favour  of
\nsecond\trespondent  M\/s.  Captain  Shipping  Estate  Private
\nLimited.\n<\/p>\n
     Ownership of the building changed from Arun Kumar jalan
\nand it\tnow vests with the Silverline Forum Private Limited,
\n(the appellant\therein) as  per registered  conveyance\tdeed
\ndated 24-1-1995. Appellant filed a suit for ejectment of the
\ntenant against first respondent under the provisions of West
\nBengal premises\t Tenancy Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to
\nas the\t“W.B. Act<\/a>“) on two grounds. First is that the tenant
\nrespondent had\tsublet the  building without  the consent of
\nthe landlord and second is that the tenant used it in such a
\nmanner as  to impair  its condition.  A decree for ejectment
\nwas passed  ex-parte on 12-12-1995. Before appellant set out
\nwith execution\tproceedings  second  respondent-  sub-tenant
\nfiled a\t suit (O.S.  No. 2997\/95) against appellant and some
\nothers\tfor   a\t declaration  and  consequential  injunction
\norders. Though\tinitially second  respondent got  an interim
\norder injunction against ejectment it was subsequent vacated
\non 15-12-1995, but that suit is still pending.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  meanwhile appellant  moved for execution of the
\ndecree of ejectment. On 20-3-1996, bailiff of the court went
\nto the premises for effecting delivery of possession, but he
\nwas resisted by the representatives of the second respondent
\nand he\treported the  matter to the court. When he was again
\ndirected by  the Court to effect delivery of possession with
\npolice help,  he was  unable to dispossess second respondent
\nas the\texecution court\t has  stayed  dispossession  in\t the
\nmeantime. Second  respondent filed Miscellaneous Case 556 of
\n1996 before  the execution  court quoting  order 21 Rule 101
\nand Section  151 of  the Code, raising a contention that the
\ndecree was  passed without  making him\ta party and alleging
\nthat the  decree was obtained in collusion between appellant
\nand first  respondent Rajiv Trust. Execution court, however,
\nheld that  second respondent  being a  third party  resistor
\ncannot avail  himself of  the remedy  provided in Ordered an
\ninquiry to  be conducted  under Section 151 of the Code into
\nthe allegations\t made by  the second  respondent, as per its
\norder dated  26-4-1976. both  sides,  appellant\t and  second
\nrespondent, were  aggrieved by\tthat order and hence both of
\nthem challenged it in revision before the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     A learned\tSingle judge  of  the  Calcutta\t High  Court
\nconcurred  with\t  the  view  of\t the  execution\t court\tthat
\ngrievances of  the second  respondent  cannot  be  canalised
\nthrough Order  21 Rule\t101 presumably\tbecause the  decree-
\nholder has  not moved  the application\tfor police  help  to
\nremove the  resistance under  order 21\tRule 97 of the Code.
\nNonetheless,  learned\tSingle\tJudge\tobserved  that\t the
\napplication of\tsecond respondent  could be gone into by the
\ncourt in accordance with the inherent powers of the court as
\nrecognised in  Section 51  of the  Code. On the said view of
\nthe matter  both revisions were dismissed by the order which
\nis under challenge now.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri Siddhartha Shankar Ray, learned senior counsel who
\nargued for  the contesting  parties did not choose to defend
\nthe view  of the  learned Single  Judge of  the\t High  Court
\nregarding non-availability of the remedy under Order 21 Rule
\n97 of  the Code. According to the learned counsel, though he
\ncould not  agree with that reasoning of the High Court there
\nis no  warrant for  the stand  of the decree-holder that the
\nrespondent had\tno legal  right\t to  assail  the  decree  in
\nexecution proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri  Kapil  Sibal,  learned  senior  counsel  for\t the
\nappellant –  decree-holder, on the other hand contended that
\nsince second respondent has admitted that he is a sub-tenant
\nunder the  first sub-tenant he cannot even be heard that the
\ndecree for  ejectment is a nullity or a collusive decree. He
\npointed\t out  that  even  the  first  sub-tenant  has  never
\nassailed that  decree and  hence second respondent, who is a
\nsub-tenant under  the first sub-tenant, has no competence to
\nquestion the decree for ejectment.\n<\/p>\n
     At the  outset, we\t may observe that it is difficult to
\nagree with  the High  Court that  resistance or obstructions
\nmade by\t a third  party to the decree of execution cannot be
\ngone into  under Order\t21 Rule\t 97 of the Code. Rules 97 to
\n106 in\tOrder 21  of the Code are subsumed under the caption
\n“Resistance to\tdelivery of  possession to  decree-holder or
\npurchaser”. Those rules are intended to deal with every sort
\nof resistance or obstructions offered by any person. Rule 97
\nspecifically provides  that when  the holder of a decree for
\npossession of  immovable property  is resisted or obstructed
\nby- “any  person” in  obtaining possession  of the  property
\nsuch decree-  holder has  to make an application complaining
\nof the\tresistance or  obstruction. Sub-rule  (2)  makes  it
\nincumbent on  the court\t to proceed  to adjudicate upon such
\ncomplaint in accordance with the procedure laid down.\n<\/p>\n
     It is true that Rule 99 of Order 21 is not available to
\nany person until he is dispossessed of immovable property by
\nthe decree-holder.  Rule 101  stipulates that  all questions
\n“arising  between   the\t parties   to  a  proceeding  on  an
\napplication under rule 97 or rule 99” shall be determined by
\nthe executing  court, if such questions are “relevant to the
\nadjudication of\t the application”.  A  third  party  to\t the
\ndecree who  offers resistance  would thus  fall\t within\t the
\nambit of  Rule 101  if an  adjudication is  warranted  as  a
\nconsequence of\tthe resistance or obstruction made by him to
\nthe execution  of the decree. No doubt if the resistance was
\nmade by\t a transferee  pendente lite of the judgment debtor,
\nthe scope of the adjudication would be shrunk to the limited
\nquestion whether  he is\t such transferee and on a finding in
\nthe affirmative regarding that point the execution court has
\nto hold\t that he has no right to resist in view of the clear
\nlanguage  contained   in  Rule\t102.  Exclusion\t of  such  a
\ntransferee from\t raising further contentions is based on the
\nsalutary principle  adumbrated in Section 52<\/a> of the Transfer
\nof property Act.\n<\/p>\n
     When a  decree-holder complains  of resistance  to\t the
\nexecution of a decree it is incumbent on the execution court
\nto adjudicate  upon it.\t But while  making adjudication, the
\ncourt is  obliged to  determine only such question as may be
\narising\t between   the\tparties\t to  a\tproceeding  on\tsuch
\ncomplaint and  that such  questions must  be relevant to the
\nadjudication of the complaint.\n<\/p>\n
     The words “all questions arising between the parties to
\na proceeding  on an application under Rule 97” would envelop
\nonly such questions as would legally arise for determination
\nbetween those  parties. In  other words,  the court  is\t not
\nobliged to  determine a question merely because the resistor
\nraised it. The questions which executing court is obliged to
\ndetermine under\t rule 101,  must possess two adjuncts. First
\nis that\t such questions\t should have  legally arisen between
\nthe parties,  and the  second is,  such\t questions  must  be
\nrelevant for  consideration and\t determination\tbetween\t the
\nparties,  e.g.\tif  the\t obstructor  admits  that  he  is  a
\ntransferee pendente  lite it is not necessary to determine a
\nquestion raised by him that he was unaware of the litigation
\nwhen he\t purchased the\tproperty. similarly,  a third party,
\nwho questions  the validity  of a transfer made by a decree-
\nholder to  an  assignee,  cannot  claim\t that  the  question
\nregarding its  validity should\tbe decided  during execution
\nproceedings. Hence,  it\t is  necessary\tthat  the  questions
\nraised by  the resistor or the obstructor must legally arise
\nbetween him  and  the  decree-holder.  in  the\tadjudication
\nprocess envisaged  in order  21\t Rule  97(2)  of  the  Code,
\nexecution court\t can decide whether the question raised by a
\nresistor or  obstructor legally\t arises between the parties.
\nAn answer  to the  said question also would be the result of
\nthe adjudication contemplated in the sub-section.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  above context  we may  refer to  Order 21\tRule
\n35(1) which reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
     “Where a decree is for the delivery
\n     of\t   any\t  immovable    property,
\n     possession\t  thereof    shall    be
\n     delivered to  the party  to whom it
\n     has been  adjudged, or  too    such
\n     person as he may appoint to receive
\n     delivery on  his  behalf,\tand,  if
\n     necessary, by  removing any  person
\n     bound by  the decree who refuses to
\n     vacate the property.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It is clear that executing court can decide whether the
\nresistor or  obstructor is  a person bound by the decree and
\nhe refused  to\tvacate\tthe  property.\tThat  question\talso
\nsquarely falls\twithin the adjudicatory process contemplated
\nin Order  21  Rule  97(2)  of  the  Code.  The\tadjudication
\nmentioned therein  need not  necessarily involve  a detailed
\nenquiry or  collection\tof  evidence.  Court  can  make\t the
\nadjudication on admitted facts or even on the averments made
\nby the\tresistor. Of course the Court can direct the parties
\nto adduce  evidence for\t such determination.  If  the  Court
\ndeems it necessary.\n<\/p>\n
     In Bhanwar Lal vs. Satyanarain<\/a> and anr. [(1995) (1) SCC
\n6], a three – judge Bench has stated as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “A reading of Order 21, Rule 97 CPC
\n     clearly envisages that “any person”
\n     even including  the judgment-debtor
\n     irrespective  whether   he\t  claims
\n     derivative title from the judgment-
\n     debtor or\tset up\this  own  right,
\n     title  or\t interest  de  hors  the
\n     judgment  debtor\tand  he\t resists
\n     execution of  a  decree,  then  the
\n     court  in\taddition  to  the  power
\n     under Rule 35(3) has been empowered
\n     to conduct\t an enquiry  whether the
\n     obstruction  by   that  person   in
\n     obtaining possession  of  immovable
\n     property  was  legal  or  not.  The
\n     degree-holder gets\t a  right  under
\n     Rule  97  to  make\t an  application
\n     against third  parties to\thave his
\n     obstruction removed  and an enquiry
\n     thereon could be done.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In Brahmdeo  Chaudhary vs. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and
\nanother<\/a>, [  1997 (3)  SCC 694]\tthis  Court,  following\t the
\naforesaid decision, made the under-quoted observation:\n<\/p>\n
     “It is  pertinent to  note that the
\n     resistance\t and\/or\t obstruction  to
\n     possession of immovable property as
\n     contemplated by  Order 21,\t Rule 97
\n     CPC could\thave been offered by any
\n     person. The  words ‘any  person’ as
\n     contemplated by Order 21, Rule 97 ,
\n     sub-rule  (1)   are   comprehensive
\n     enough  to\t  include   apart   from
\n     judgment-debtor or\t anyone claiming
\n     through him  even persons\tclaiming
\n     independently   and    who\t   would
\n     therefore, be  total  strangers  to
\n     the decree.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     ……………………………..
\n     ………… Consequently
\n     it must be held that Respondent 1’s
\n     application dated\t6.5.1991  though
\n     seeking only re-issuance of warrant
\n     for delivery of possession with aid
\n     of armed  force in substance sought
\n     to bypass\tthe previous  resistance
\n     and  obstruction\toffered\t by  the
\n     appellant on  the spot. Thus it was
\n     squarely covered  by the  sweep  of
\n     Order 21,\tRule  97,  sub-rule  (1)
\n     CPC.   Once   that\t  happened   the
\n     procedure laid down by sub-rule (2)
\n     hereof had\t to be\tfollowed by  the
\n     executing court.  The Court  had to
\n     proceed  to   adjudicate  upon  the
\n     application in  accordance with the
\n     subsequent provisions  contained in
\n     the said order.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We are  in\t respectful  agreement\twith  the  aforesaid
\nstatement of law.\n<\/p>\n
     We,  therefore,  agree  with  the\tcontention  of\tShri
\nSiddhartha Shankar  Ray,  learned  senior  counsel  for\t the
\nsecond respondent  that the High Court went wrong in holding
\nthat  the   contention\tof   second  respondent\t  cannot  be
\nconsidered under  Order 21  Rule 97  of the  Code.  But\t the
\naforesaid finding  is not  sufficient  to  dispose  of\tthis
\nappeal. Shri  Kapil Sibal  contended that  second respondent
\nbeing a sub-tenant under the first sub-tenant he is bound by
\nthe decree of ejectment albeit his not being made a party to
\nthe suit  in which  the decree was passed. it is quite clear
\nthat second  respondent is  a tenant  under the\t first\tsub-
\ntenant. This  can  be  gathered\t from  paragraph  6  of\t the
\napplication which  second respondent  filed in the execution
\ncourt.\n<\/p>\n
     Such a  sub-tenant as the second respondent is bound by
\nthe decree  of ejectment.  Section 16<\/a>  of the W.B. Act deals
\nwith  “creation\t and  termination  of  sub-tenancies  to  be
\nnotified.” Sub-section\t(1) of\tSection 16<\/a>  relates to\tsub-
\ntenancies created  after the  commencement of  the W.B. Act<\/a>.
\nSub-sections (2)  &  (3)  deal\twith  sub-tenancies  created
\nbefore the  commencement of  the W.B.  Act<\/a>. As\tall the sub-
\ntenancies in  this case\t were created after the commencement
\nof the\tW.B. Act<\/a>  it is not necessary to consider the latter
\ntwo sub-section.  Hence Section\t 16(1)<\/a>\talone  is  extracted
\nbelow:\n<\/p>\n
     “(1) Where\t after the  commencement
\n     of this  Act, any premises are sub-
\n     let either\t in whole  or in part by
\n     the  tenant   with\t  the\tprevious
\n     consent in writing of the landlord,
\n     the tenant\t and every sub-tenant to
\n     whom the premises are sub-let shall
\n     give notice  to the landlord in the
\n     prescribed manner\tof the\tcreation
\n     of the sub-tenancy within one month
\n     from the  date of\tsub  sub-letting
\n     and shall\tin the prescribed manner
\n     notify the termination of such sub-
\n     tenancy within  one month\tof  such
\n     termination.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     A\treading\t  of  the  sub-section\treveals\t that  three
\nadditional requisites are also necessary for a sub-tenant to
\nget wiggled  into the  contours of the sub-section. they are
\n(1) the\t sub-tenancy should  have  been\t created  after\t the
\ncommencement of\t the W.B.  Act<\/a>;\t (2)  the  landlord  of\t the
\npremises should\t have given written permission to the tenant
\nto create  such sub-tenancy;  (3) the  tenant and  the\tsub-
\ntenancy with  in one  month of\tsuch creation. Section 16(2)<\/a>
\nand 16(3)<\/a>  deal with  sub-tenants who  got  into  possession
\nbefore commencement of the West Bengal Act<\/a>, and they too are
\nobliged to notify the landlord within the time specified.\n<\/p>\n
     The sub-tenants  who secure  perch in  Section  16<\/a>\t are
\nafforded with  two advantages  during any  action which\t the
\nlandlord may  launch  for  eviction  of\t the  tenant.  Those
\nadvantages are\tincorporated in\t Section 13(2)<\/a>\tof the\tW.B.
\nAct. One  of them  is that such sub-tenant is entitled to be
\nmade a party to the suit for recovery of the premises by the
\nlandlord. Second  is that  no decree  or order for ejectment
\nshall be  passed against such subtenant except under certain
\nspecified conditions.  Thus, sub-section  (2) of  section 13<\/a>
\nand Section 16<\/a> of the W.B. Act are inextricable inter-twined
\nwith each other.\n<\/p>\n
     Sub-section (4)  of section  13<\/a> of\t the W.B. Act has no
\nrelevance in  the present  case as  it only  deals with\t the
\nclaim of  a landlord  for eviction  on the  ground  that  he
\nreasonably  requires   the  premises   either  for  his\t own
\noccupation or  for the\tpurposed of  renovation, re-building
\netc. Now  we may  refer to  Sub-section (3) of Section 13<\/a> of
\nthe W.B. Act. It reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
     “Save as  provided\t in  sub-section
\n     (2) and  sub-section (4),\ta decree
\n     or\t order\t for  the   delivery  of
\n     possession of any premises shall be
\n     binding on every sub-tenant.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It\t is  the  statutory  mandate  that  the\t decree\t for
\nejectment shall\t be binding  on every  sub-tenant unless  he
\nfalls within  the ambit\t of either  sub-section (2)  or sub-
\nsection (4)  of Section\t 13<\/a>. There is no case for the second
\nrespondent that\t he has\t given any  notice to  the  landlord
\nbefore the  expiry of  the time schedule fixed in Section 16<\/a>
\nof the\tAct. Nor has he a case that he would fall within the
\npurview of  the aforesaid  two sub-sections in Section 13<\/a> of
\nthe W.B. Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Of\t course,   learned  counsel  for  second  respondent
\ncontended that the instrument of lease as between Arun Kumar
\nJalan and  M\/s. Rajiv  Trust contained a term permitting the
\ntenant\tto  create  sub-tenancy.  Learned  counsel  for\t the
\nappellant  argued   that  such\tpermission  cannot  be\tover
\nborrowed by sub-tenants to create further sub-tenancies, and
\nhe pointed out that even second respondent has no claim that
\nhe has\tnotified the  landlord as envisaged in Section 16(1)<\/a>
\nof the W.B. Act.\n<\/p>\n
     It is clear from Section 16(1)<\/a> of the W.B. Act that the
\nprevious consent  of the  landlord contemplated\t therein can
\nonly be availed of by his tenant. In other words, the tenant
\nunder the  landlord can\t use  that  consent  to\t sublet\t the
\npremises to  another person.  A lease between the tenant and
\nhis sub-tenant\twould be  governed by  the terms agreed upon
\nbetween them  and the tenant cannot bind his landlord by any
\nsuch terms.\n<\/p>\n
     In Shantilal  Rampuria and\t ors. vs.  M\/s Vega  Trading
\nCorporation and\t ors<\/a>. [1989  (3) SCC 552] two judge Bench of
\nthis Court  considered the  scope of  Section 16<\/a> of the W.B.
\nAct and\t held that  “previous  consent\tin  writing  of\t the
\nlandlord  with\t respect  to   each-letting  separately\t  is
\nessential and  a general  authority to\tthe tenant  in\tthis
\nregard will not be sufficient in law.” In that case, none of
\nthe sub-tenant\twas impleaded  as party, and this Court held
\nthat since  notice under  Section 16<\/a>  was not  serve don the
\nlandlord the non-impleadment will not affect validity of the
\nproceedings for\t eviction. Their  Lordships  sought  support
\nfrom another  two-Judge Bench decision of this Court in M\/s.
\nShalimar Tar  Product ltd.  vs. H.C.  Sharma and ors. [ 1988
\n(1) SCC\t 70], in  which similar\t provision in the Delhi Rent
\nControl act were considered.\n<\/p>\n
     In Juthika\t Mulick and  anr. Vs.  Dr. Mahendra Yashwant
\nBal and\t ors. [1995  ( 10  SCC 560],  provisions of W.B. Act<\/a>
\nwere the  subject  matter  for\tconsideration,\tbut  nothing
\ncontrary to  eh decision  in Shantilal\tRampuria (supra) has
\nbeen stated  by this  Court. Reference\twas also made to the
\ndecision in Mahabir Prasad Verma vs. Dr.Surinder Kaur<\/a> [ 1982
\n(2) SCC\t 258]. Though  it related  to the provisions of East
\nPunjab Urban  Rent Restriction\tAct,  1949  ,  the  question
\nconsidered  was\t whether  a  sub-tenancy  created  with\t the
\nconsent of  the\t landlord  during  the\tsubsistence  of\t the
\ntenancy would continue to be lawful even after the expiry of
\nthe period  of lease.  The answer was in the affirmative. At
\nany rate  that decision\t does not  run counter\tto the\tview
\nadopted\t by   the  two-judge  Bench  in\t shantilal  Rampuria
\n(supra).\n<\/p>\n
     Thus, without  any difficulty,  it\t can  be  held\tthat
\nconsent given  by the landlord to his tenant for creation of
\nthe sub-tenancy\t is valid.  Only as between the landlord and
\nhis tenant.  Such consent  cannot be used by a sub-tenant to
\ncreate another\tsub-tenancy under  him so  as  to  bind\t the
\nlandlord.\n<\/p>\n
     For the  aforementioned reasons,  we allow\t this appeal
\nand set\t aside\tthe  order  under  challenge.  We  hod\tthat
\nappellant is  entitled to  deliver of possession by removing
\nthe obstruction\/resistance made by the second respondent.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd vs Rajiv Trust And Another on 31 March, 1998 Author: Thomas Bench: K.T. Thomas, S. Rajendra Babu PETITIONER: SILVERLINE FORUM PVT. LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: RAJIV TRUST AND ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31\/03\/1998 BENCH: K.T. THOMAS, S. RAJENDRA BABU ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G M E […]<\/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-249251","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSilverline Forum Pvt. Ltd vs Rajiv Trust And Another on 31 March, 1998 - 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\/silverline-forum-pvt-ltd-vs-rajiv-trust-and-another-on-31-march-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd vs Rajiv Trust And Another on 31 March, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/silverline-forum-pvt-ltd-vs-rajiv-trust-and-another-on-31-march-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-06T07:56:00+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/silverline-forum-pvt-ltd-vs-rajiv-trust-and-another-on-31-march-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/silverline-forum-pvt-ltd-vs-rajiv-trust-and-another-on-31-march-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd vs Rajiv Trust And Another on 31 March, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-06T07:56:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/silverline-forum-pvt-ltd-vs-rajiv-trust-and-another-on-31-march-1998\"},\"wordCount\":3081,\"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\\\/silverline-forum-pvt-ltd-vs-rajiv-trust-and-another-on-31-march-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/silverline-forum-pvt-ltd-vs-rajiv-trust-and-another-on-31-march-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/silverline-forum-pvt-ltd-vs-rajiv-trust-and-another-on-31-march-1998\",\"name\":\"Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd vs Rajiv Trust And Another on 31 March, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-06T07:56:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/silverline-forum-pvt-ltd-vs-rajiv-trust-and-another-on-31-march-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/silverline-forum-pvt-ltd-vs-rajiv-trust-and-another-on-31-march-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/silverline-forum-pvt-ltd-vs-rajiv-trust-and-another-on-31-march-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd vs Rajiv Trust And Another on 31 March, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd vs Rajiv Trust And Another on 31 March, 1998 - 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\/silverline-forum-pvt-ltd-vs-rajiv-trust-and-another-on-31-march-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd vs Rajiv Trust And Another on 31 March, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/silverline-forum-pvt-ltd-vs-rajiv-trust-and-another-on-31-march-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-06T07:56:00+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/silverline-forum-pvt-ltd-vs-rajiv-trust-and-another-on-31-march-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/silverline-forum-pvt-ltd-vs-rajiv-trust-and-another-on-31-march-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd vs Rajiv Trust And Another on 31 March, 1998","datePublished":"1998-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-06T07:56:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/silverline-forum-pvt-ltd-vs-rajiv-trust-and-another-on-31-march-1998"},"wordCount":3081,"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\/silverline-forum-pvt-ltd-vs-rajiv-trust-and-another-on-31-march-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/silverline-forum-pvt-ltd-vs-rajiv-trust-and-another-on-31-march-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/silverline-forum-pvt-ltd-vs-rajiv-trust-and-another-on-31-march-1998","name":"Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd vs Rajiv Trust And Another on 31 March, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-06T07:56:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/silverline-forum-pvt-ltd-vs-rajiv-trust-and-another-on-31-march-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/silverline-forum-pvt-ltd-vs-rajiv-trust-and-another-on-31-march-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/silverline-forum-pvt-ltd-vs-rajiv-trust-and-another-on-31-march-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd vs Rajiv Trust And Another on 31 March, 1998"}]},{"@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\/249251","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=249251"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/249251\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=249251"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=249251"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=249251"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}