Allowed

Runwal Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Madhusudan D. Mehra and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC6 Mar 2013S/2055/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the plaintiff to withdraw the suit against all defendants. It held that depositors in a specific performance suit could withdraw deposited funds upon settling their agreement, even if a third-party defendant contested the transfer, as their rights must be litigated in their own suit.

What did the court decide?

Suit and all interim applications disposed of; depositors (defendants 1-3) allowed to withdraw amount; suit withdrawn against all defendants.

Runwal Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Madhusudan D. Mehra and 3… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2013)

S.2055/2010(902)

mnm

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

¶5

SUIT NO. 2055 OF 2010

¶6

Runwal Developers Pvt. Ltd. ...Plaintiff Vs. Madhsudhan Mehra & Ors. ...Defendants

¶7

Mr. Dinyar Madon, Sr. Advocate a/w. Ms. Soumya Shrikrishnan i/b. Kanga & Company for Plaintiff

¶8

Mr. Farhan Dubhash, Advocate a/w. Mr. Sanjay Kotak, Mr. A. Bararkod i/b. Udwadia & Udeshi for Defendant No.4 Mr.Pradeep Bakhru i/b. Wadia Gandhy for Defendant Nos. 1 to 3

¶9

CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 6^TH MARCH, 2013

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

The plaintiff desires to withdraw the suit against all defendants. Plaintiff and defendants 1, 2 and 3 have agreed that the amount of Rs.7,70,65,750/- deposited in this Court pursuant to the interim order dated 22^nd October, 2010 together with all accrued interest thereon be allowed to be withdrawn by defendants 1, 2 and 3.

¶12

The attorneys for the plaintiff and defendants 1, 2 and 3 have tendered minutes of the order in that behalf.

¶13

Counsel on behalf of defendant No.4 opposes the above agreement being effectuated between the plaintiff and defendants 1, 2 and 3 in as much as defendants 1, 2 and 3 would be allowed to withdraw the amount deposited in the

S.2055/2010(902)

Court.

Counsel on behalf of defendant No.4 contends that the plaintiff may withdraw the suit which he has the right to do against all the defendants.

¶18

He has drawn my attention to the order dated 22^nd October, 2010 directing the deposit. Upon the deposit the plaintiff has been granted injunction against all the defendants against creation of third party rights in the suit property.

¶19

Defendant No.4 has an earlier claim under an earlier agreement which was known to the plaintiff at the time of entering into the suit agreement between the plaintiff and defendants 1, 2 and 3. The order considers the claim of the plaintiff under Section 19(c ) of the Specific Relief Act upon such knowledge.

¶20

Having considered the prior claim as also the plaintiff’s claim the interim order had come to be passed.

¶21

The defendant No.4 has sued upon his claim earlier. That is in Suit No.2691 of 1998 filed in this Court. However the plaintiff in that suit, defendant No.4 herein, failed to obtain any interim reliefs. His claim for specific performance remains at that. That would have to be agitated in the suit upon the evidence led in the trial. The claim of defendant No.4 herein would, therefore, be considered only at that stage and upon such

¶22

S.2055/2010(902)

¶23

¶24

evidence. If defendant No.4, the plaintiff in that suit, makes out his case he may obtain the relief of specific performance or the relief of damages. Defendant No.4 as the plaintiff in that suit would have to execute that decree as and when obtained. The amount lying to the credit of this suit cannot be utilised for the purpose of execution of the decree passed in that suit. That is what defendant No.4 seeks to do.

¶25

It is seen that the plaintiff’s suit is based upon the plaintiff’s agreement with defendants 1, 2 and 3. To secure that agreement the amount was directed to be deposited. Consequently upon the settlement of the claim between the parties to that agreement, the amount must be allowed to be withdrawn by either of those parties. Not allowing them to withdraw that amount would mean that the amount of consideration secured under that agreement would be utilised as a security for a decree which would be passed in future. That cannot be allowed in this suit. What defendant No.4 would get in this suit is the freedom of the plaintiff’s claim upon the plaintiff withdrawing the suit. Defendant No.4 is freed of his obligation to defend the suit. He cannot claim any other relief in the plaintiff’s suit. Hence, the suit is allowed to be withdrawn against all the defendants.

¶26

There shall be an order and decree in terms of minutes of the order signed by Advocates of the parties and the plaintiff as also defendants 1, 2 and 3.

¶27

S.2055/2010(902)

¶28

¶29

The suit and all interim applications against all defendants stand disposed of accordingly.

¶30

There shall be 1/2 refund of Court fee.

¶31

This order is stayed for 2 weeks.

¶32

(MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

Runwal Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Madhusudan D. Mehra and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Runwal Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Madhusudan D. Mehra and 3 Ors.

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

Ketan Ghanshyam Shah and Ors. Vs Pujja @ Heena Ketan Shah and Anr.

Tata Capital Ltd. Vs Anand Swarup Boeroi and Suresh M. Oberoi

Mangilal Gulabchand Jain and 2 Ors. Vs Kola Bhaskar Naidu and 16 Ors.

Kishore Mohandas Samtani Vs Karan Kishore Samtani

Marine Plus Vs M.V. Bos Angler and 2 Ors.

Shardhha Vijay Surve Vs .......................................