Partly allowed

Sharikaboas Madaji and Co., v. Sri Gopala Das Dwarkadas

Madras HC10 Dec 2024A/2287/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras, in an interim application for admission of fresh documents, examined an undated resolution and minute of a meeting against minutes and an agreement of sale. Dismissing the admission of the undated resolution due to lack of link and proving the relevance of the minutes and sale agreement.

What did the court decide?

Admitted the Minutes of the Meeting dated 19.12.2004 and Agreement of Sale dated 10.02.2005, subject to proof and relevance; rejected the undated Resolution.

Sharikaboas Madaji and Co., Vs Sri Gopala Das Dwarkadas — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

A.No.2287 of 2010 in C.S.No.301 of 2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10-12-2024

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

Application No.2287 of 2010 in C.S.No.301 of 2000

¶6

M/s.Sha Rikbadas Madaji & Co., Rep. by its Partner, Mr.Kantilal P.Bhansali, Old No.97, New No.41, Perumal Mudali Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 001

¶7

... Applicant/Plaintiff

¶8

-vs-

¶9

Sri Gopaldas Dwarkadas Family Trust Estate, Rep. By its Managing Trustee, Mr.G.Balakrishnadas, No.329, Mint Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 003. ... Respondent/Defendant

For Plaintiff :

Mr.M.Nandha Kumar.

For Respondent :

Ms.Vasudha Thiagarajan.

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This Application is filed by the plaintiff to receive additional

¶16

documents.

¶17

(i). Resolution by the respondent trust dated 'Nil'

¶18

(ii) Minutes of the meeting by the respondent trust dated

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19.12.2004; and

¶20

(iii) Agreement of sale dated 10.02.2005.

¶21

2. Though these documents are subsequent to the suit, the purpose

¶22

for which same to be relied upon is not adequately and satisfactorily explained.

¶23

3. This Court is of the view that, taking into consideration of the

¶24

long pendency of the suit, the chequered history of the litigation before and after filing the suit, two of the documents have certain bearings on deciding the issues involved. i.e., (i) The minutes of the meeting by the respondent trust, dated 19.12.2004 and (ii) Agreement of sale dated 10.02.2005.

¶25

4. The Learned Counsel for the applicant/plaintiff submits that based on the undated resolution, the third document, agreement of sale dated 10.02.2005 was entered. However, this Court does not find any link between the undated resolution and the agreement of sale dated 10.02.2005, except the commonness in the property mentioned. Being an undated document, this Court is not inclined to admit the 1^st document. As far as two other documents are concerned, same shall be admitted in evidence, subject to proof and relevance.

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

5. Accordingly, this Application No.2287 of 2010 is partly-

¶28

allowed.

¶29

10-12-2024

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

Dr.G.Jayachandran,J.

¶32

bsm

¶33

Application No.2287 of 2010 in C.S.No.301 of 2000

¶34

10.12.2024

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Sharikaboas Madaji and Co., v. Sri Gopala Das Dwarkadas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharikaboas Madaji and Co., v. Sri Gopala Das Dwarkadas

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

K.Bala Venkatesh and another Vs a.Murugan

A.M.Sundar Vs S.Yamuna and 2 Others

G. Clement Elango Vs Mr. Rajkumar

Sharikaboas Madaji and Co., Vs Sri Gopala Das Dwarkadas

V.Saraswathy and 2 Others Vs G.Kumara Jayanthi and Another

Andre Jude Hammond Vs Meghnaa G.Mehta