Dismissed

Thakurdas Rohira (Party in Person) and Anr. v. Terrain Infrastrucre Pvt.Ltd.

Bombay HC4 Apr 2013CA/65/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a company application under suit regarding specific performance of a flat purchase agreement, the High Court of Bombay original side held that since a suit is pending and applicants are protected by interim orders, they are not necessary or proper parties. The application for joinder was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Petitioner to join Applicants as Respondents in the Company Petition was dismissed.

Thakurdas Rohira (Party in Person) and Anr. Vs Terrain… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

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

¶2

COMPANY APPLICATION No. 65 OF 2013 IN

¶3

COMPANY PETITION NO. 69 OF 2012

¶4

Thakurdas Rohira & Anr.	..Applicants.
In the matter Between
M/s. Shubh Shelters India Pvt. Ltd & Ors. Versus	..Petitioners.
Terrain Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd..	..Respondent.

¶5

Thakurdas Rohira, Applicant-in-person.

¶6

Mr. Dinyar Madan, Senior Advocate i/b M/s. S. Pathak & Co., for the Respondent.

¶7

Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : April 4, 2013 .

¶8

P. C. :

¶9

Heard the Applicant in person for himself and Applicant No. 2. Mr. Madan, learned senior advocate appeared for the Respondent-Company.

¶10

By this application, the Applicants seek direction to the Petitioner to join them as party Respondents in above company petition. The Applicants claim that the RespondentCompany has agreed to sell flat bearing No.501 admeasuring 750 sq. ft in building known as Terrain heights to them. The

¶11

1 / 2

¶12

patilsr

¶13

Applicants apprehends that the Respondent-Company in collusion with the Petitioner may transfer the project itself so as to defeat their rights.

¶14

It is not disputed that the Applicants have filed Suit in this Court, being Suit No. 987 of 2012, against the Respondent-Company for specific performance of the agreement in respect of Flat No.501 and the Applicants are protected by the ad-interim orders passed in that suit. In these circumstances and especially in view of the provisions of section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the Applicants cannot be said to be necessary or proper party to the Company Petition. In the circumstances, company application is dismissed.

¶15

[RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶16

2 / 2

¶17

patilsr

Thakurdas Rohira (Party in Person) and Anr. v. Terrain Infrastrucre Pvt.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thakurdas Rohira (Party in Person) and Anr. v. Terrain Infrastrucre Pvt.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Dattaram Sawant and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Raziya Begum Hajimiya Shaikh Vs the Municipal Corporation of G.R. Mumbai and Ors.

Bse Limited and Anr. Vs Pramod Maruti Dhaware and 3 Ors.

The Official Liquidator of M/S. Vishuddha Rasayanee Private Limited. Vs . Mr. Kanegaonkar R. Gajanan and Other Four

Mahindra Logistics Ltd. Vs Nitco Tiles Ltd.

Shree N. M. Electricals Limited Vs Mudra Lifestyle Limited - L17110MH1997PLC106945