Ravinder Kumar Jain & Ors. v. Virender Kumar Jain & Ors.

1. R-1 is present in the court. Basket no. 4 has come to his share. He says that he has three fundamental reservations apropos implementation of the settlement agreement. The three issues, with respect to his Basket, have been noted in the previous order dated 10.04.2023. The same are now resolved between the parties as under:i. The Parking space which is to be linked to the commercial flat at Jasola will either be made available to him or the market rate for a parking space shall be paid to him. The market rate, according to appellant is in the range of Rs.[2] lacs however, the respondent says that it is in the range of Rs.[5] lacs. The other siblings are agreeable to pay Rs.[5] lacs. R-1 agrees to accept the Rs.[5] lacs in lieu of the parking space. ii. The value of the Tronica City flat is mutually assessed at Rs.35 lacs. This quantum too shall be paid by the appellants to R-1. iii. Apropos Basket no.2, the plot of land at Narela which was supposed to be transferred in the name of R-1 Virender Kumar Jain, it is agreed by the parties that the said property was not in existence at the time of filing of the suit. Therefore, its inclusion in the basket was an error and does not call for implementation. An impossibility cannot be insisted upon. iv. The Lothian Road property mentioned hereinbelow was in the possession of R-1, it was to go into Basket-2, details of the same are as under:-

2. R-1 was to honour the aforesaid obligation of rendering property bearing no.2704/2614, Lothian Road to Basket-2. Instead, he has disposed it off, after the filing of the appeal. R-1 knew fully well that in terms of the settlement agreement, this property was to go into the share of the appellants. The said property is no more available with R-1 to transfer it to appellant no.2. On a query put to the learned counsel for R-1 apropos the value of the Lothian Road property he states, upon instructions from R-1,that it would be of equivalent value to the Narela property.

3. Refuting the afore-indicated valuation the appellants say that there can be no comparison between an agricultural plot of land in Narela, situated virtually on the outskirts of the city and a commercial property, located in the heart of the city, on Lothian Road, next to the historical St. James Church. According to the appellants, the Lothian Road property was sold for approximately Rs.11 crores, whereas the Narela property would not fetch more than Rs.50 lacs. So, the mismatch in value is at least 12 times. R-1 says that the property was sold off at Rs.1.10 crores. However, it was always open to him to have offered it to the appellants, who for many reasons including emotional and historical, would have wanted to purchase/retain it, in the family. Yet R-1 did not offer it to them and went on to sell it, in breach of the terms of settlement to a third party, a stranger to the family. Indeed, even now the appellants are ready and willing to buy it at Rs.2.[5] crores, i.e. at more than twice the value at which it was purportedly sold-off by R-1.

4. The Lothian property was sold despite an injunction order passed apropos all properties by the Division Bench of this court, on a motion moved by R-1. The latter was fully aware of the injunction order, yet he consciously and deliberately breached it. He sold-off the Lothian property without so much as even moving an application seeking liberty of the court. Such blatant breach of the court’s directions could entail consequences of damage and contempt of court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the value of the Lothian property, if taken at Rs.11 crores, and the value of Sohna property is considered at Rs.10 crores, then a total of Rs.21 crores is to be accounted for by R-1. The Sohna property is to come into the share/Basket of the appellants.

6. M/s Cuddle Up Diet Products Pvt. Ltd. with R-1, is to come to the share of the appellants after re-payment of debts of Rs.3.[3] crores attached to the said company. After this liability is set-off against the aforesaid value of Rs.21 crores, Rs.17.[5] crores would still need to be paid by R-1 to the appellants. Presently the latter is not in a position to pay the said monies.

7. At this stage, the case was passed over for the learned counsel for R-1 to obtain instructions. Having done so, he submits that in lieu of the Lothian and Sohna Road properties, as well as for his retaining M/s Cuddle Up Diet Products Pvt. Ltd., R-1 hereby gives up his claim in the asset at serial no. 1 of Basket no. 4, which is as under:-