- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 600 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 432 OF 1994 Central Bank of India ... Plaintiff. Vs. E.F. Minbatiwalla Engineering & Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ... Defendants. Ms. Sapna Raichure i/b Mr. T.N. Tripthi for the Plaintiff. Mr. Shilpan Gaonkar i/b M/s. Udwadia & Udeshi for the Defendant No.1 & 3. CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATED 10TH JUNE, 2009 P.C. 1 This Chamber Summons is taken out by the defendant No.3 to record accord and full satisfaction of the plaintiffs claim in the above suit and declare that no amount is due or payable by the defendant No.3 to the plaintiff. Admittedly Chamber Summons No. 1689 of 2003 was filed by the plaintiffs. The following are admitted facts in the matter: 2 Chambers Summons No. 1689 of 2003 was taken out by the plaintiff seeking directions against the Court Receiver to sell the - 2 - hypothecated security, more particularly described in Exhibit “C” to the plaint. The minutes of consent order shows that the highest bidder M/s Ashok Scrap Traders offered a sum of Rs. 4,01,100/- vide their letter dated 15 th September, 2003 to the plaintiff and the said amount was paid vide pay order. The Court Receiver delivered the security to the said offerer M/s. Ashok Scrap Traders. In the said Chamber Summons draft minutes of the consent order containing five clauses were forwarded by the plaintiff to the advocate for the defendant No.3. The advocate for the defendant No.3 in the draft minutes added the following clauses as clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7. “4. By consent, the said sum of Rs.4,01,100/- shall be appropriated by plaintiff in full and final settlement towards plaintiff’s claim in above suit. 5. With this order the above suit stands disposed of. 6. No order as to costs of Chamber Summons & suit. 7. Certified true copy of the Minutes of order expedited.” 4 The advocates for the plaintiffs were not agreeable to the amendments carried out to the Minutes of the consent order made by the - 3 - advocate for the defendant No.3 which was conveyed to the said advocates. The said advocates therefore, by their letter dated 9 th January, 2004 confirmed that the draft consent terms earlier forwarded without amendments suggested/made by the advocates for defendant No.3 are acceptable. By an order dated 27 th January, 2004 the Chamber Summons was disposed of in terms of the said unamended consent terms. However, paragraph 3 of the order reads as under: “3. Refund as per rules.” In view of the aforesaid, it is contended on behalf of the defendant No.3 that by the said order dated 27 th January, 2004 suit has been disposed of and therefore, Chamber Summons was made absolute as sought. 5 The learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff has submitted that though the words “Refund as per rules” has crept in, in the order dated 27 th January, 2004, the same is a mistake and it cannot be said that the suit is disposed of by an order of this court dated 27 th January, 2004. He has submitted that what was disposed of was only Chamber Summons - 4 - No.1689 of 2003. 6 In my view the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the defendant No.3 cannot be accepted for the following reasons: The suggestion made in the draft consent terms by the learned counsel appearing for the defendant No.3 regarding disposal of the entire suit were not accepted by the plaintiff because of which the advocate for the defendant No.3 agreed to file the consent terms in Chamber Summons No. 1689 of 2003 as earlier forwarded to them by the plaintiff. The order dated 27 th January, 2004 categorically states that Chamber Summons is disposed of in terms of consent terms. Moreover, the consent minutes are admittedly filed by the parties in the Chamber Summons and the order dated 27 th January, 2004 is obtained in the Chamber Summons No.1689 of 2003 and not in Suit No.432 of 1994. 7 The words “Refund of Court Fees” found in Clause 3 of the order dated 27 th January, 2004 is obviously a mistake. 8 For the afore-stated reasons the Chamber Summons of the plaintiff is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. - 5 - 9 Place the Notice of Motion No. 1118 of 2009 for hearing and final disposal on 22 nd June, 2009. sd/- (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.)