Arindam Sinha, J. - (1.) Plaintiffs have claimed decree for Rs.1,66,63,07,750/- and consequential reliefs. This is their second suit. In their earlier suit no.454 of 1993 (Saloo Chowdhury & Anr. vs Guinness Publishing Ltd. & Ors.), they had claimed aggregate Rs.36,32,50,000/- as well as injunctions and consequential reliefs. First suit was compromised on terms of settlement being those reproduced below: "1.The defendant no.1, Guinness Publishing Limited agrees and undertakes to recognize and publish the plaintiffs, namely, Saloo Choudhury and Mrs. Neena Choudhury as the first and fastest man and woman to have circumnavigated the Earth by Car covering six continents under the applicable Rules in 1989 and 1991 in all future editions of "The Guinness Book of Records" published by Guinness Publishing Limited. 2. The plaintiff no.1, Saloo Choudhury will make his expert services available and use his best endeavour to ensure the global success of the proposed Guinness Book of Records, Milenium Challenge and the proposed Choudhury Trophy. 3. Saloo Choudhury will advise and counsel Guinness Publishing Limited for the period up to 1 July, 2000 and in connection therewith Guinness Publishing Limited shall reimburse all mutually agreed expenses that may be incurred by Saloo Choudhury. 4. All interim orders passed in the suit are vacated. 5. The plaintiffs do not claim any further reliefs against the other defendants and the suit against the other defendants will stand dismissed. 6. The parties will bear and pay their respective costs."
(2.) They have since been acknowledged by defendant to be first and fastest to circumnavigate the globe by car, covering six continents. A co-ordinate Bench had framed following issues on 29th April, 2014. 1) Is the suit barred by Resjudicata, Estoppel and Acquiescence and/or principles analogous thereto? 2) Is the claim in the suit barred by limitation? 3) Did the defendant commit breach of any term of the consent decree dated 2nd July, 1998 passed in the earlier suit between the same parties being suit No.454 of 1993? 4) Did the defendant agree to hold and sponsor the circumnavigation race to be termed as Guinness Book of Records Millennium Challenge subsequently renamed as Challenge 2000 and award Choudhury Trophy to the winner of such race? 5) Did the parties enter into any agreement dated 7th April, 1998 limiting expenses to be incurred by the plaintiffs USD 1,00,000 as alleged in paragraph 34 of the written statement? 6) Did the defendant refund entry fee of USD 11,500 to the plaintiffs as alleged in paragraph 36 of the Written Statement? 7) Are the plaintiffs entitled to Rs.30,00,00,000/- as loss and damage allegedly suffered in giving up various engagements? 8) Are the plaintiffs entitled to Rs.36,32,50,000/- as alleged compensation which was claimed in suit No.454 of 1993? 9) Are the plaintiffs entitled to Rs.1,00,00,00,000/- for loss and damage allegedly suffered on account of loss of goodwill and reputation? 10) To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled? Proposed Guinness Book of Records Milenium Challenge was not held. Hence, this second suit. Trial of this suit took place before several co-ordinate Benches. After witnesses were examined, the suit came to be heard by this Bench. Defendant on having produced its evidence, first addressed Court on arguments.
(3.) Mr. Mookherjee submitted, at best, claims in this suit can be said to arise from alleged breach of those terms. He proceeded to argue on the issues. He demonstrated that defendant no.1 had agreed to be reimbursed for his expenses at a sum fixed at US$ 1,00,000/-. He referred to exhibits 12 and 15, which are a Memorandum of Understanding and, what his client termed, a side letter, together to be agreement between parties regarding the sum fixed and payment of it to defendant no.1, in instalments. He referred to exhibits 13A, 14 and 16 to demonstrate, payments were made as was agreed between parties in the prior suit and subsequently, for performance of such terms. He also referred to answers of plaintiff no.1 given to question nos. 187 to 206 and 256 to 261 in cross-examination. He then made submissions regarding issue no.6, that the defendant refunded entry fee of US$ 11,500/- to plaintiffs. He referred to exhibits 17 and 18, latter being a document to show payment made of a sum of UKÂ £6,879.86, by cheque dated 12th June, 2000, drawn in favour of plaintiff no.1 by or on behalf of Atkinson Courage Limited, who, he submitted, was event manager appointed by his client. He submitted further, exhibit 17 is a document produced by plaintiff no.1 from the box. Said document is a statement at closing date 22nd July, 2000, in which the witness had indicated entry made on 26th June, 2000 to show, a sum of US$10,130.59/-, corresponding to the payment made by cheque evidenced by exhibit 18, was credited to his account.;