http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SHRI SUVARAN RAJARAM BANDEKAR & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI NARAYAN R. BANDEKAR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/09/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      These appeals  by special  leave arise  from the  order dated December  15, 1995  made in  LPA Nos. 155156/95 by the Bombay High  Court. We  need not traverse all the details of the litigation.  Suffice it  to state  that we  have  issued notice primarily  on the  question of the power of the court to re-schedule  the payment of the amounts under the consent decree. In  a consent  decree on  compromise, court would be loathe to  interfere  with  the  terms  thereof  by  way  of modification unless  both parties  give consent  thereto. On the last  occasion, when the matter had come up for hearing, Shri T.R.  Andhyrujina, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents,  had stated  that  pursuant  to  the  order passed by  the  High  Court  they  have  complied  with  the directions. Therefore,  by order  dated July  22,  1996,  we directed the respondents to file an affidavit as regards the dates on  which  compliance  had  bean  made.  In  pursuance thereof, an  affidavit has  been filed in which it is stated that all  the directions  have been  complied with  and  the payments have  been made  on  due  dates  except  the  three instalments to  be paid  in future viz.. first in this month i.e. September  96, second  in October 96, and the third and last  one,  in  December  96.  In  view  of  the  fact  that substantial amount  has already  been paid,  we do not think that it is a fit case warranting interference on the special circumstances. Another  area of controversy now sought to be raised is  the failure  to  hand  over  the  R.C.  books  in relation to  seven vehicles.  It is  stated in the affidavit and  records  have  been  placed  before  us,  to  show  the circumstances in  which the  R.C. books  could not be handed over in  relation to  five vehicles.  It is stated that with regard to  the sixth vehicle, it has been complied with now. As regards  the seventh vehicle, it is stated across the bar and also  in the  affidavit that  the vehicle  was sold as a scrap; as a consequence, R.C. book could not be handed over.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

It is  stated by  Mr. C.  Sitaramiah, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants that vehicle was kept stationed and the  vehicle became a junk because of the conduct on the part of  the respondent  in not  allowing the vehicles to be used. That  is not the controversy which we can decide here. Under these  circumstances, we  do not  think that these are the cases for interference.      The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.