2010 (9) TMI 929

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed a suit in LE and C Suit No. 32/38/1992 on the file of Small Causes Court at Bombay. During the pendency of this suit, the parties arrived at a compromise and, accordingly, the suit came to be decreed in terms of a compromise petition filed before the Court, as per Annexure G. Since the respondent-company failed to honour the terms of compromise petition at Annexure G, the petitioner filed Misc. No. 289/1994 for issuance of contempt proceedings against the respondent-company. This Misc. No. 289/1994 came to be dismissed with an observation that the petitioner can enforce the decree by executing the decree. Thereafter the plaintiff initiated execution proceedings in Misc. No. 289/1994. On an interlocutary order in this Misc. No. 289/1994, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... petition papers. 7. From the material on record, it is not in dispute that the eviction proceedings LE and C Suit No. 32/38/1992 ended in a compromise. Clause 4 of compromise decree reads as under:- "Defendants agree and undertake to this Hon'ble Court to pay to the plaintiffs regularly Rs. 70,000 (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) per month as mesne profit for use and occupation of the suit premises, the first of such payment to be made on 6th April, 1992 ending on 25th April, 1992 and subsequent payments to be made on or before 6th day of each succeeding month ending on 25th day of each succeeding month and regularly every month Rs.38,000 (Rupees Thirty Eight Thousand only) per month towards use of furniture, fixtures and fittings lyin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e No. LE and C Suit No. 32/38/1992. The present petition is filed on 5-6-2000. Therefore, the claim of petitioner is within the time and not barred by limitation. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the respondent-company that the claim of the petitioner is barred by time. 11. As stated above, the amounts payable by the respondent-company is determined by competent civil court in suit No. LE and C Suit No. 32/38/1992, Misc. notice No. 535/1995 and revision application No. 62/1996. Therefore, there is determination of the amounts payable by the respondent-company in these proceedings. The proceedings before the competent civil courts referred to above are not denied and disputed by the respondent-company. In the executio....