Allowed

Vaidehi Akash Housing Pvt. Ltd. v. New D.N.Nagar Chs Ltd. and 2 Ors. and Rajesh Nuwal

Bombay HC13 Feb 2012CHS/16/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order permits applicants to be impleaded as defendants in a suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff against a Housing Society. Amendments to the plaint are directed to be carried out within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Applicants permitted to be impleaded as defendants in the suit; amendments to be carried out within eight weeks.

Vaidehi Akash Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs New… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2012)

chs1557-11g

vai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1557 OF 2011 IN SUIT (LODGING) NO.1871 OF 2011

¶6

Vaidehi Akash Housing Pvt. Ltd. ....Plaintiff V/s. New D.N. Nagar CHS Union Ltd. & Ors. ....Defendants And Sushila S. Agarwal & Anr. ....Applicants

¶7

WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1572 OF 2011 IN SUIT (LODGING) NO.1871 OF 2011

¶8

Vaidehi Akash Housing Pvt. Ltd. ....Plaintiff V/s. New D.N. Nagar CHS Union Ltd. & Ors. ....Defendants And M/s.Preash Developers Pvt. Ltd. ....Applicants

¶9

WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1581 OF 2011 IN SUIT (LODGING) NO.1871 OF 2011

¶10

Vaidehi Akash Housing Pvt. Ltd. ....Plaintiff V/s. New D.N. Nagar CHS Union Ltd. & Ors. ....Defendants And Pankaj Nilmani ....Applicant

¶11

WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.16 OF 2012

chs1557-11g

SUIT (LODGING) NO.1871 OF 2011

¶16

Vaidehi Akash Housing Pvt. Ltd. ....Plaintiff V/s. New D.N. Nagar CHS Union Ltd. & Ors. ....Defendants And Rajesh Nuwal HUF through its Karta Mr.Rajesh Nuwal ....Applicant

¶17

Mr.Jai Chinai, Senior Counsel with Ms.Astha Tahmankar i/b Lakshmi Murali & Associates for the Plaintiff.

¶18

Mr.Raja S. Ghadge for Defendant No1.

¶19

Mr.Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Counsel with Mr.Simil Purohit and Ms.Anooja Menon i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co. for Defendant No.2.

¶20

Mr.Rajiv Mane, A.G.P. for the State – for defendant No.3.

¶21

Mr.Anand Mishra i/b Mr.Ashok M. Saraogi for the Applicants in Chamber Summons Nos.1557 of 2011, 1581 of 2011 and 1572 of 2011.

¶22

Mr.Piyush Raheja i/b R.V.J. Associates for the Applicant in Chamber Summons No.16 of 2012.

¶23

CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2012.

¶24

P.C. :-

¶25

The applicants seek to be impleaded in the suit as defendants.

¶26

2(A). The plaintiff and the society, defendant No.1 had entered into an agreement on 31.12.2005. According to the applicants, the

¶27

chs1557-11g

¶28

¶29

plaintiff thereafter agreed to allot/sell flats in a building proposed to be developed by it. Similar agreements / allotment letters were also entered into between the plaintiff and other parties.

¶30

(B). Under this agreement, the plaintiff sold its rights in respect of the free sale components to defendant No.2.

¶31

(C). Defendant No.1 purported to terminate the agreement with the plaintiff by a letter dated 16.4.2010. The plaintiff thereafter entered into an agreement on 4.4.2007 with defendant No.2, who is an another developer.

¶32

(D). Thereafter an agreement was entered into on 29.1.2011 between defendant No.1 and defendant No.2.

¶33

The plaintiff has sought specific performance of the agreement dated 31.12.2005, challenged the termination thereof by the society by the letter dated 16.4.2010 and has sought to have set aside the agreement dated 4.4.2007 between defendant No.2 and itself.

¶34

The result of this litigation would definitely affect the rights of the applicants, who claim through the plaintiff. If the plaintiff’s suit is dismissed, their rights would be completely negated. It is not possible to reject these applications merely on the ground that the applicants have filed separate proceedings for enforcement of their rights in which they have impleaded the defendants. As on date, there is no dispute between the plaintiff and the applicants. Mr.Chinai, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff not only has no

¶35

chs1557-11g

¶36

¶37

objection to these applications being allowed but confirms that the plaintiff does not challenge the agreements between the applicants and itself. If therefore, the suit is decreed in its entirety, it may not even be necessary for these applicants to pursue the proceedings filed by them or which they may file hereafter in respect of their transactions with the plaintiff.

¶38

Even assuming that the applicants are bound to adopt separate proceedings, they would, in any event, be proper parties in these proceedings. Further the plaintiff who is dominus-litus, has no objection to the same.

¶39

In the circumstances, the chamber summonses are disposed of by the following order :-

¶40

The plaintiff is permitted to implead the applicants as the defendants. This order is without prejudice to the pending interlocutory proceedings and orders therein, if any. The amendments to be carried out within eight weeks from today.

¶41

The amendments shall not be carried out for a period of four weeks from today to enable defendant Nos.1 and 2 to challenge this order.

Vaidehi Akash Housing Pvt. Ltd. v. New D.N.Nagar Chs Ltd. and 2 Ors. and Rajesh Nuwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaidehi Akash Housing Pvt. Ltd. v. New D.N.Nagar Chs Ltd. and 2 Ors. and Rajesh Nuwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Malad Malwani Amrapali Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 9 Ors.

Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Karnataka Bank Ltd.

Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Karnataka Bank Ltd.

Haw Par Brothers International Ltd. and Ors. Vs Sahyadri Pharmaceuticals

Trupti Enterprises Vs Bhoopathy Sargunar

Haw Par Corporation Ltd. Vs Dubey Pharmacy and Ors.