Dismissed

M/s.Bloom Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s.Stone Water Info Tech

Telangana HC24 Feb 2023CRP/2482/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 challenging an order refusing legal heirs of a deceased proprietor to prosecute a money suit. The High Court distinguished the case from precedents where the proprietor participated in tenders as the legal heirs of the deceased were barred.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is dismissed.

M/s.Bloom Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s.Stone… — Succession and Inheritance | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^2s86 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P NAVEEN RAO

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:2482 OF 2022

¶7

Petition under Arlicle 227 of constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order dated 181o412022 in lA No.7022 of 2021 in os No.2s5l2016 on the fite of the courr of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

'l . M/s.Bloom Solutions lv! ^ !!O_, _ neq by its Managing Director, Mr.D.Vrdyasagar, office at 6-2-98r, Frat irlo.50i, Maruthi praia,'xrra-irta6al Hyderabad.

¶10

2 Mr D.Vidyasagar, office at 6-2-981, Frat No.501, fvlaruthi praza, Khairtabad, Hyderabad.

¶11

...PETITIONERS/ RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS

¶12

AND

¶13

M/s.Stone Water lnfo Tech, Rep. by its proprietor, tv1r. M.N.Venkateswarlu, (Died as per LRs)

¶14

Z f [ [{otykuri Exmi.Papayamma, Wo. Late Sri Motukuri Venkateswartu, Age.tjS years, Occ.Housewife.

¶15

Mr.Motukuri Venkata Narendra Krishna, S/o. Late Sri l\Iotukuri Venkateswarlu, Age.43 years, Occ.pvt. Emolovee.

¶16

Smt. Motukuri Usha Rani, D/o. Late Sri MotLtJn Venkateswartu. Age.39 years, Occ.Pvt. Employee. All are Rl/o.H.No.Villa No.242, S.A.patm Meadows, Kompalty, R.R.District _ s00 100.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS/ PLAINTIFFS

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶19

Petition under section 1sl cpc praying that in the circumstances slated in the affidavit filed in support of_the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay all further proceedings of the suit bearing o.s.No,255l2016 on the fite oi the chief Judge, city civil court at Hyderabad and pass such other order or orders.

¶20

For the Petitioners : SRI K.ANOOP KUMAR, Advocate

¶21

For the Respondent Nos.2, 3,4 : SRI RAJESH MADDY, Advocate

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

P YR ,/ ( R|' .'o )Jt al )(Dl

¶24

-l

¶25

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2482 OF 2022

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard Sri K.Anoop Kumar, learned counsel for l)t:^{titioners/(i( fendantsand SriRajeshMaddy, learned} counscl lor responden ts / plaintiffs.

¶29

). NI/s. Stone Watcr )r'rfo Tech, represented by its proprictor-M.Vcnkatesrr,,arltr, instituted O.S.No.255 of 2016 in thc Court ,r[ Chiel ,ludge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, for recovcrn o[ moncy from the defendants. During the pcnclc'ncv ol- t [-re said suit, he died. The legal heirs of thc plrrintill i.t'., s'ile, son and daughter, hled I.A.No.7O22 ol' 202 I pr rrving to permit them to imirlead as plaintilfs to thc srriI ls lt'q:rl rcprcsc,ntzrtivcs of proprietor of M/s. Stone Wurtcr lnhi^'li t h. Bv Order dated 18.04.2O22, the Court I;tLrrv rrlkrrrt'rl the I.A. Challenging the same, this Civil Ilt'r'ision I)( litir)n is filc(l

¶30

.+. [,ca rnccl counscl zrppearing for the petitioners/ rlclendrrnts sr.rbmits tltat on( e the proprietor dies, the czrusc. in rlrt, srrrt tlot s not sLrrvivc irnd the trial Court grosslv crrecl itt :tllou irtq t lrt' applir:atirtp [iled by the legal 5eirs ol th.

¶31

t'\R^I ( RP \i) l t.) t)l ltt: )

¶32

¶33

deceased, by name, M.Venkateshwarlu, to come on record and prosccute the suit. In support of the^{said contention,thc} learned counsel has placed reliance on the^{decisionof thc} Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in M/s. S.A.^{ENTERPRTSEv. THE} GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN RAILIVAY & OTHERSI.

¶34

Per contra, learned counsel for thc respondents/ plaintiffs submits that as the suit was filed for recovery^ol moncy, the cause in the suit survives even after thc deatl-r of thc proprietor and his legal heirs are en[itled to^prosccutc the suit. In support of the contention, learncd counscl^has placed reliance on the following decisions:

¶35

i) Decision of the Honble Supreme Court in^AstIoK TRANSBORT AGENCY V. AWADHESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER2;

¶36

ii/ Judgement of the Hon'ble Punjab and llan'atra^High Court in BHAN SINGH AND ANOTHER v. SUDESH^{RANI AND} OTHERS3;

¶37

iii) Order of this Court in FOOD CORPORATION^OF INDIA, TADEPALLIGUDEM rr. SRI RAMACHANDRA^BOTLED AND RAW RICE MILL algP^g111BRs+; and

¶38

h,l Jqdgment of ttre Hon'lele Supremc Court^{in AMWAY} INDIA ENTERPRISAS PRIVATE LIIVIITED VS. RAVINDRANATH RAO SINDHIA AND ANOTHERs.

¶39

I have carefully considered the rcspectivc subrnissiotrs

¶40

i lo tl s( ('onlilc Cal 16988

¶41

'(le()stiscc-5(r?

¶42

'lorl s((^()ntrnc P&H 27021: PLR(2013) 172 P&H^ll{0 ' ,\ { lqSs^AP2-.1 '(l0lIIS SC( -16l

¶43

PVR./ ( RP |o 248) of]tll:

¶44

It is not in clispllte that the petitioners in I.A.No.7O22 ol 2O'21 zrre n'ili. zrnd children ol late M.Venkateshwarlu and the Suit s'as fiL'd for recoven'of money from the defendants.

¶45

'lhe clecisiorr relied upon by the learned counsel for the pctitioners do nol come to thc aid of the petitioners. In the said decision, rl)(' mothcr ol thc writ petitioner represented as the sole prol)netor:rnd participated in the tender process u,itl-r the Inclirrn Rzrils'ays. TI're General Conditions of Contract ol 2O14. prrrticular)r paragraph-9 of Annexure "P1" thereol provides, inter al[a, that if a tenderer expires after submission ol r Irc te-nder or aftcr acceptance thereof, the railu,avs^,,r'otrlcl cit't:rn such tertdcr as 'cancelled'. In view of thc s:rid r:larrst'. thc Calcr-rtrir IIigh Court held that the legal ht:irs t'zrnntlt l)l- )sr'cut( the rnirlt('r.

¶46

ln Ashok Transport Agency (supra), the Hon'ble Supremc Coull lr;rs clcarlr. Itckl^(hat in the event of death of the propricror- r I rr propriet:rl<sup>('onccrn, the legal heirs of the proprictor :u('('nlrtl('(l to pr()s(^('Lltc the litigation. The Hon'ble Srrpri m,^('(,uit lr, l(I .rs urr,l, r:

¶47

"r-i. ,\ P.lrlr), r.jllrD l-lrlll (littIrs ljr)rrr a proprietary COnCem ortnt'<l lrr'.r r rrI(ILr.I(IrIiII r\ prrrrDcrship is governed by the l,r',\r\i,'r,,1^{|r. lr,.'rirr} l,,r'',r, rstrjP Ar-r. 19J2. Though a I,,,IIIt'^J'I |,^{\ t,r,,r} , I',\lt, tr.r,n lrltl Ofdef XXX RUle 1 C'PC cn;rlrlr'. llt(. l)alrncts oJ ,r l)ir.tnership firm to sue or

¶48

I'Nll t CRI',\o )!$ nf:tDl

¶49

¶50

Lo be sued in the name of^{the firm. A proprietary conccrrl} is onl-r'the business name in which the^{proprietorof the} business carrles on the business.^{A suit by or againsta} proprietanr concern is by or^{againstthe proprietorof the} busrness- [n the^event of^{the deathof the proprietor o[ a} proprietary concern, it is the legal^{representativesof the} proprietor who alone can sue or be sued in^{respect of the} dcalings o[ the proprietary business.^{The provisions ot} Rule 1O of Order XXX which make^{applicablethe} provisions of Order XXX to a proprietary^{concern,enable} the proprretor of a proprietary business to^{be sued in the} business names of his^proprietary concern.^{The real} Part-v rtho is being sued is the proprietor of the said^business The said provision does not have the^effect of^converting the proprictary busrness into a Pa-rtnership^firm.The provisions of Rule 4 of Order XXX have no application^to such a surt as by virtue of Order XXX Rule^1O the^other provisions oI Order XXX are applicabte to a suit against thc proprietor of proprietary business "insofar as the nature of such case permits'. This means that onl]^those lrrovrsions^{ofOrder XXX can be made applicableto} proprietary concern which can be so made applicable kceping in vie$'the nature o[ the case,

¶51

In thc present case, A.C. Basu, Proprietor of Ashok 'fransport Agency, had died before the date of the instrtution of the suit and on the date of the institution of the suit, the proprietary concern was not in existence. Onl! the lcgal representatives of A.C. Basu could be sucd rrith regard to any cause of action arising against n.C. Llasu iIl connection with the proprietary business. We lind rt^(hf[icult to understand how the provisions o[ Rulc 4 Orcler XXX CPC, could be extended to such a case."

¶52

l0 Same is the view taken by Hon'ble Punjarb ancl [ ltrn ana IJigh Court and this Court.

¶53

I L In regard to the decision of Hon'ble Suprcmc Court,^I do not- s('e .uly crror in the decision of the triiLl Court \f itrfilllti ng intcrference.

¶54

PNR,J ( RP \b )48) ol 20)2

¶55