Hydraulics And Pneumatics [India] Llp vs M/S. Metal Arc Agri. Llp

2025 INSC 721 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 27417 OF 2023

HYDRAULICS AND PNEUMATICS [INDIA] LLP …PETITIONER

VERSUS

M/S. METAL ARC AGRI. LLP AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. The present petition challenges the judgment and final

order dated 29th November 2023 passed by the High Court of

Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to

as the “Revisional Court”), whereby the revision petition filed

by the Respondent No.1 herein was disposed of thereby

setting aside the order dated 6 th April 2023 passed by the

Executing Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Faridabad

(hereinafter referred to as the “Executing Court”) and Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2025.05.17 16:21:34 IST Reason:

remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

1

2. The facts in the case are not in dispute. The land

owned by the petitioner-LLP, which was earlier a private

limited company, was acquired vide Notification under

Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter

referred to as “Act”) dated 4th July 2012. Notification under

Section 6 of the Act for the same came to be issued on 31 st

December 2012 and the Award came to be passed on 29 th

May 2013. Subsequently, the original LLP agreement was

executed and the petitioner-LLP was converted into the

Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) from a private limited

company. The petitioner-LLP filed a Land Acquisition Case

No.4 of 2014, challenging the award passed by the Land

Acquisition Officer dated 29th May 2013. The Reference

Court passed an Award on 20th December 2019 enhancing

the compensation at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per sq. yard.

After making deductions towards purported development

charges, the landowners were awarded an enhanced amount

of Rs.56,000/- per sq. yard with statutory benefits along

with interest. An appeal being RFA No.2532 of 2021 was

filed by the petitioner-LLP, challenging the Award of the

Reference Court.

2

3. It appears that for execution of the award passed by the

Reference Court, the petitioner-LLP filed an execution petition

before the Executing Court during the pendency of the said

RFA before the High Court.

4. Notice was issued in the said execution petition on 31 st

August 2020.

5. It further appears that, Respondent No.1 had entered

into a supplementary agreement showing Respondent No.1

as a partner of the petitioner-LLP having acquired 11.33%

shareholding from one of the original partners namely

Anirudh Kumar.

6. On the basis of the said supplementary agreement,

Respondent No.1 filed an application under Order XXI, Rule

15(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter

referred to as, “CPC”), before the learned Executing Court.

The learned Executing Court held that the LLP was having a

separate entity, it was a juristic person distinct from

shareholders and that the shareholder did not have any

independent rights over the company’s assets. Observing the

same, the application filed by Respondent No.1 came to be

rejected. Being aggrieved thereby a revision petition came to

3 be filed by Respondent No.1.

7. Learned Revisional Court held that the award was in

the nature of joint decree conferring and creating the rights

in favour of all the partners in the LLP firm. As such,

Respondent No.1 was entitled to invoke the provision of

Order XXI, Rule 15(2) of the CPC, so as to protect their

interest in the award. The Revisional Court, therefore, set

aside the order of the Executing Court and remanded the

matter to the Executing Court to give an opportunity to all

the parties to produce all the relevant documents, as regards

the execution of the supplementary agreement dated 17 th

December, 2018.

8. We have heard Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Senior

Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-LLP and Shri

Nidhesh Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf

of Respondent No.1.

9. Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioner submits that the learned

Revisional Court had grossly erred in interfering with the

well reasoned judgment and order passed by the learned

Executing Court. It is submitted that the order passed by

the Executing Court was based on the judgment of this

4 Court in the case of Bacha F. Guzdar v. Commissioner of

Income Tax, Bombay1. He further submits that the

supplementary agreement itself is a bogus agreement being

unsigned one and therefore not enforceable in law.

10. Shri Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

fairly concedes that insofar as the original partner Anirudh

Kumar is concerned, the position is not disputed that he has

11.33% shareholdings.

11. Per contra, Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1, submits that the

learned Revisional Court has rightly remanded the matter to

the learned Executing Court for considering it afresh. He

further submits that the petitioner has withdrawn the entire

amount deposited by the State Government and as such if no

orders are passed by this Court, Respondent No.1 would be

left with no remedy. He further submits that out of the

amount deposited in the Registry of this Court vide order

dated 6th May 2024, some amount is already paid to Anirudh

Kumar. He, therefore, submits that the remaining amount is

also required to be paid to Anirudh Kumar.

12. Shri Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, submits that he

appears on behalf of the said Anirudh Kumar also, who has 1 (1954) 2 SCC 563 5 filed an impleadment application.

13. This Court is required to take note of a subsequent

development. After this Court entertained the proceedings

and granted stay on 14th December 2023, Respondent No.1

filed an application before the Executing Court, for

withdrawing the application filed by it under Order XXI Rule

15(2) of the CPC. Further, a fresh application was filed under

Order XXI, Rule 15(2) of the CPC on behalf of said Anirudh

Kumar.

14. Confronted with this situation, Shri Gupta, learned

Senior Counsel, submits that since the petitioner was

opposing the application of Respondent No.1, Anirudh Kumar

was left with no other alternative but to file an application

himself.

15. It appears from the submissions of Shri Gupta, learned

Senior Counsel that Respondent No.1 and the said Anirudh

Kumar are two sides of the same coin.

16. We, however, cannot ignore the fact that after revision

petition was allowed by the learned Revisional Court and the

matter was remanded, Respondent No.1 has withdrawn the

application filed before the learned Executing Court.

17. When there is no application on behalf of Respondent

No.1 pending before the learned Executing Court, the order

6 passed by the Executing Court in favour of Respondent No.1

is totally rendered infructuous.

18. In that view of the matter, we find that the special leave

petition itself does not survive and is disposed of as such.

19. Insofar as the application of the said Anirudh Kumar is

concerned, we direct the learned Executing Court to consider

the same in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity

to all the parties and decide the same expeditiously.

20. The amount deposited in the Registry of this Court be

remitted back to the learned Executing Court for passing

appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

21. We further clarify that none of the observations made in

the impugned judgment and order passed by the Revisional

Court would be taken into consideration by the learned

Executing Court while passing an order on the application

under Order XXI Rule 15(2) of the CPC of the said Anirudh

Kumar.

22. Pending applications, including the applications for

impleadment, shall stand disposed of.

..............................J. (B.R. GAVAI)

7 …........................................J. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)

NEW DELHI;

MAY 07, 2025.

8