RAMA NARANG Vs. RAMESH NARANG
LAWS(SC)-2006-4-94
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on April 12,2006

RAMA NARANG Appellant
VERSUS
RAMESH NARANG Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

JAGDISH VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2011-5-134] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAT GUPTA VS. RUPALI GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2018-5-304] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAT GUPTA VS. RUPALI GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2018-5-304] [REFERRED TO]
NIZAMUDDIN VS. RAMZANI [LAWS(DLH)-2015-2-280] [REFERRED TO]
BRANDS ACADEMY PVT. LTD. AND ORS. VS. RISHU MONGA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-12-131] [REFERRED TO]
MR. RAJINDER KUMAR MALHOTRA VS. MR. PARESH BIHARILAL VYAS [LAWS(BOM)-2016-2-10] [REFERRED TO]
KSHITIJ INFRAVENTURES PVT. LTD VS. KHORSHED SHAPOOR CHENAI [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-1-44] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN NAIR VS. RAJIV GUPTA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-5-4] [REFERRED TO]
SAP INDIA PVT LTD VS. M/S ZENITH SOFTWARE LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2013-5-444] [REFERRED TO]
KARTIKEYA KAPUR VS. KIM SUKH SINHA [LAWS(DLH)-2009-12-150] [REFERRED TO]
GURDIAL SINGH VS. IQBAL SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2008-4-99] [REFERRED TO]
DHRUV MEHTA VS. AROON MEHTA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-9-78] [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ PRAKSH SHARMA VS. SHAKUNTALA RANI DIWAN THR LR [LAWS(DLH)-2012-5-145] [REFERRED TO]
SONALI BHATIA VS. ABHIVANSH NARANG [LAWS(DLH)-2021-11-142] [REFERRED TO]
SUMAN CHADHA AND ANOTHER VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2018-9-261] [REFERRED TO]
VED PRAKASH ABBOT VS. KISHORE K. AVARSEKAR [LAWS(DLH)-2019-8-58] [REFERRED TO]
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY VS. GEETA KUMARI, PRESIDENT JNUSU & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2018-7-821] [REFERRED TO]
NACHHATTAR SINGH VS. SURINDER PAL SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2010-12-45] [REFERRED TO]
SALI P G VS. SUNIMOL G MANAPPURATHUMALIYIL HOUSE [LAWS(KER)-2019-10-171] [REFERRED TO]
AIRCEL CELLULAR LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2016-8-24] [REFERRED TO]
KANWAR SINGH SAINI VS. HIGH COURT OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-2011-9-126] [REFERRED TO]
SUMAN CHADHA VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2021-8-14] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY GUPTA VS. RAJIV GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-11-277] [REFERRED TO]
MITHUN RADHAKRISHNAN VS. AASTHA SAHDEV [LAWS(DLH)-2021-3-91] [REFERRED TO]
NAVIN SONI VS. MUNISH SONI [LAWS(DLH)-2022-4-21] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR BHATIA VS. SOM DATT ENTERPRISES LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2018-12-53] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN POWER PROJECTS (P) LTD VS. GAO JI FAN & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-4-431] [REFERRED TO]
JYOTI BISWAS VS. RAJ KUMAR GHOSH [LAWS(CAL)-2022-4-74] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMAL URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. VS. MAMTA KENEDDY NAIDU [LAWS(BOM)-2019-12-156] [REFERRED TO]
NEHRU PLACE HOTELS LIMITED VS. BHUSHAN LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2011-8-177] [REFERRED TO]
MATRIX CELLULAR SERVICES PVT. LTD VS. SANJOY MUKHERJI [LAWS(DLH)-2012-12-167] [REFERRED TO]
MOHANAN VS. SALIM M. KABIR [LAWS(KER)-2014-9-64] [REFERRED TO]
JANAKIRAMAN VS. G P SAVITHIRI [LAWS(MAD)-2008-10-55] [REFERRED TO]
HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED VS. PRADEEP SHANTIPERSHAD JAIN [LAWS(SC)-2022-7-39] [REFERRED TO]
SWARANJEET SINGH VS. MELCO TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD AND OTHERS [LAWS(BOM)-2018-10-207] [REFERRED TO]
PREETI KAPOOR VS. ANSHUMAN KAPUR [LAWS(DLH)-2009-10-200] [REFERRED TO]
MD. SARFARAZ ALAM VS. MD. MOFAZZULAR RAHMAN [LAWS(CAL)-2022-9-135] [REFERRED TO]
MEENAKSHI GAUTHAM VS. P.K. PRADHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED VS. MAHINDER C MEHTA [LAWS(SC)-2007-10-39] [REFERRED TO]
GURDEV SINGH VS. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER [LAWS(P&H)-2009-2-84] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRASINH RANUBHA GOHIL VS. KANJIBHAI MAVSANGBHAI PARMAR [LAWS(GJH)-2023-6-1076] [REFERRED TO]
AMIN LAL AND ANR VS. RAJINDER KUMAR AND ORS [LAWS(P&H)-2010-12-442] [REFERRED]
A. VINAY KRISHNA VS. D.B. NATESHAND [LAWS(KAR)-2023-1-859] [REFERRED TO]
KAKKOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. VS. JINU AUGUSTINE [LAWS(KER)-2021-2-64] [REFERRED TO]
MOTILAL VS. B.K.BABU SAHIB [LAWS(MAD)-2019-5-194] [REFERRED TO]
VIMAL KUMAR VS. RAMESH NEGI [LAWS(DLH)-2011-4-111] [REFERRED TO]
JAMNA DATWANI VS. KISHIN DATWANI & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2015-7-546] [REFERRED]
CROSS FIT LLC VS. RTB GYM AND FITNESS CENTRE [LAWS(DLH)-2022-9-79] [REFERRED TO]
MONT BLANC SIMPLO GMBH VS. GAURAV BHATIA AND ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-1-493] [REFERRED TO]
B S GOEL VS. REGISTRAR HIGH COURT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2006-10-191] [REFERRED TO]
SOM DATT ENTERPRISES LIMITED VS. VIJAY CABLE INDUSTRIES & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2016-11-42] [REFERRED TO]
URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE REAL ESTATE FUND VS. DHARMESH S. JAIN [LAWS(SC)-2022-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
BALWANTBHAI SOMABHAI BHANDARI VS. HIRALAL SOMABHAI CONTRACTOR [LAWS(SC)-2023-9-21] [REFERRED TO]
RAMA NARANG VS. RAMESH NARANG [LAWS(SC)-2021-1-29] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMANAN VS. S KASTHURI SUMATHI [LAWS(MAD)-2012-2-492] [REFERRED TO]
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR VS. R.VIJAYAKUMAR [LAWS(MAD)-2013-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
PUNEET PARKASH VS. JAI PARKASH [LAWS(DLH)-2010-3-48] [REFERRED TO]
PREETINDER SINGH VS. GURSHARAN SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2010-1-317] [REFERRED TO]
M/S TERRA MANUFACTURING AND SALES VS. M/S ALAGENDIRAA APPARELS [LAWS(DLH)-2011-10-237] [REFERRED TO]
SREE VYAASAASHARMAM VS. V. VENKATESWARA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2022-11-174] [REFERRED TO]
JAI BHAGWAN SHARMA VS. MUNNI DEVI [LAWS(DLH)-2022-6-95] [REFERRED TO]
ANNAMMA JOSE VS. KENICHI AYUKAWA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-11-61] [REFERRED TO]
GRAM PANCHAYAT VS. VIKARM SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2010-10-275] [REFERRED]
DALIP SINGH VS. GURMEET SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2010-9-163] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Ruma Pal, J. - (1.)In this contempt petition the petitioner alleged that the respondents 1 and 2 have violated this Courts orders dated 12th December, 2001 and 8th January, 2002 disposing of Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 265-267 of 1999 in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 209 of 1998 in Civil Appeal Nos. 366 of 1998, 603/1998 and 605/1998. The petitioner and the respondents represent two groups of members of one family. The petitioner, Rama Narang is the father of Ramesh and Rajesh the two respondents herein. They are the children of his first wife, whom he divorced in 1963. The petitioner also has children by the second wife. Disputes have been raging between the parties for over a decade. Several suits and counter suits have been filed. In contempt proceedings filed by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner an order was passed by this Court on 12th December, 2001 to the following effect :
"The following cases are pending between the parties who are parties in the present proceedings before us one way or the other. We are told that all the parties have settled their disputes in respect of all the litigations specified below.

1. O.S. No. 3535 of 1994 before the Bombay High Court.

2. O.S. No. 3578 of 1994 before the Bombay High Court.

3. O.S. No. 1105 of 1998 before the Bombay High Court.

4. O.S. No. 3469 of 1996 before the Bombay High Court.

5. O.S. No. 1792 of 1998 before the Bombay High Court.

6. O.S. No. 320 of 1991 before the Bombay High Court.

7. Company Petition No. 28 of 1992 before the Bombay High Court. Before the Principal Bench, Company Law Board, New Delhi.

8. Arbitration Suit No. 5110 of 1994 before the Bombay High Court.

Today they filed a document styled it as MINUTES OF CONSENT ORDER signed by all the parties. Learned counsel appearing on both sides submitted that all the parties have signed this document. Today except Mona Narang and Ramona Narang (two ladies), all the rest of the parties are present before us when these proceedings are dictated. As for Mona Narang and Ramona Narang learned counsel submitted that Mona Narang had affixed the signature and the power of attorney holder of Ramona Narang has signed the above document in his presence. This is recorded.

Both sides agreed that all the suits can be disposed of in terms of the settlement evidenced by "MINUTES OF CONSENT ORDER" produced before us. For disposal of those cases and/or for passing decrees in them we have to pronounce the final formal order in terms of the settlement now produced before us.

We, therefore, withdraw all the aforesaid suits to this Court under Article 139-A of the Constitution of India.

Prothonotary and Senior Master of the Bombay High Court is directed to transmit the records in the above mentioned suits by special messenger to this Court so as to reach the Registry here within ten days from today. The Bench Officer of the Principal Bench of the Company Law Board, New Delhi is directed to forward the records relating to company petition No. 28 of 1992 to the Registry of this Court so as to reach the Registry within ten days from today.

All the parties have undertaken before us that they will implement the terms of the "MINUTES OF CONSENT ORDER" on or before 1-1-2002 and that no further time will be sought for in the matter.

Clause (f) of the compromise relates to the operation of the bank accounts. That clause will come into force from today onwards.

All the afore-mentioned suits and the company petition will be posted for final formal orders on 8-1-2002 at 10.30 a.m. along with these contempt proceedings."

(2.)The Minutes of the Consent Order referred to in the order dated 12th December, 2001 was as an agreement between the parties, which was duly executed by them.
(3.)The bone of contention between the parties is primarily the control of a company known as NIHL. The consent minutes provided inter alia :-
(a) With effect from 4th May, 1999 Rama, Ramesh and Rajesh are the only Directors of NIHL (and its subsidiaries). Any increase in the Board of Directors shall be with the mutual consent of Rama and Ramesh/Rajesh.

(b) None of the Directors (Rama, Ramesh and Rajesh) can be removed from directorship.

(c) Rama and Ramesh shall continue to be in joint management and control of NIHL and Rajesh shall continue to be the Permanent Whole Time Director thereof in charge of day to day operations/ management.

(d) No decision shall be adopted concerning or affecting the said Company (and its subsidiaries) without the consent of Rama and Ramesh (or Rajesh) in writing. It is further clarified and agreed that save and except as provided herein no prevailing decisions including appointment of Directors/ Executives or any other persons shall continue unless Rama and Ramesh (or Rajesh) consent to the same in writing.

(e) All the collections coming in cash shall continue to be remitted in the bank accounts of the Company and all transactions will only be made in the form of cheques and/ or as may hereafter be agreed to between Rama and Ramesh (or Rajesh).

(f) All bank accounts of the Company shall continue to be operated jointly by any two out of the three Directors namely Rama, Ramesh and Rajesh and/or as may hereafter be agreed to between Rama and Ramesh (or Rajesh). If the amount of any transaction exceeds Rs. 10 (ten) lacs the same shall be undertaken through a cheque signed jointly by Rama and Ramesh/Rajesh."



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.