Dismissed
M.Arul Nandi Sivam v. J.K.Ramesh Chandar (Deceased)
Madras HCCS/800/2010
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.S.No.800 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
C.S.No.800 of 2010
M.Arul Nandi Sivam .. Plaintiff
vs.
1.J.K.Ramesh Chandar 2.R.K.Paresh 3.R.K.Jignesh 4.R.K.Mayur 5.Bhabutmal Jain
(Plaint was amended as per order dated 22.02.2013 in A.No.861 of 2013)
Prayer: Civil Suit filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC read with Order VII Rule 1 of High Court Original Side Rules, praying to pass the following judgment and decree against the defendants.
i) directing the defendants 2 to 4 to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.6,42,50,000/- from the plaintiff and to execute sale deeds in favour of the
C.S.No.800 of 2010
plaintiff in respect of the suit property at the plaintiff's costs in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 23.09.2006 and Supplementary Agreement dated 23.07.2007 as follows:
d) 2nd defendant along with 6th defendant in respect of Item No.'s 4 & 5 of schedule property
e) 3rd defendant along with 5th defendant in respect of Item No.'s 6 to 9 & 10 of schedule property
f) 4h defendant along with 7th defendant in respect of Item No.'s 11 & 12 of schedule property.
ii) or in the alternative directing the defendants 2 to 4 to refund the sale advance of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore only) paid by the plaintiff along with interest and compensation for breach of contract in case this Hon'ble court should come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to the equitable relief of specific performance.
C.S.No.800 of 2010
iii) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants and subordinates from in any manner alienating or encumbering the suit property in favour of third parties and
iv) for cost of the suit.
For Plaintiffs : No Appearance
For Defendants : M/s.Subha for D3 & D4 Mr.D.Saikumaran for D5 to D8
JUDGMENT
When the matter was taken up for hearing on 13.07.2023, there was
no representation on behalf of the plaintiffs and hence, the matter was posted under the caption "for dismissal" on 20.07.2023. Even today, (20.07.2023) there is no representation on behalf of the plaintiffs either in person or through the counsel on record. Hence, the Civil Suit is dismissed
for non-prosecution. No costs.
20.07.2023
Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking Order uma
C.S.No.800 of 2010
A.A.NAKKIRAN,J.
uma
C.S.No.800 of 2010
C.S.No.800 of 2010
20.07.2023
1 provisions across 1 enactments
J.K.Ramesh Chandar
R.K.Paresh
R.K.Jignesh
R.K.Mayur
Bhabutmal Jain
A.A.Nakkiran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court