SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(SC) 546

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. SINGHVI & SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.
VIDUR IMPEX AND TRADERS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS - Appellants
VERSUS
TOSH APARTMENTS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS - Respondents
BHAGWATI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. - Appellant
VERSUS
TOSH APARTMENTS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5918 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11501 of 2009) with Civil Appeal No. 5917 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17156 of 2009)
Decided on : 21-08-2012.

IMPORTANT POINT
Order I rule 10(2), CPC - Applicability.
Comity of jurisdiction of courts.

Headnote:(a) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 10(2) - Broad principles governing disposal of application for impleadment stated. (Para 36)

        (1995) 6 SCC 50; (1972) 2 SCC 200; (1973) 2 SCC 705; 26 (1984) DLT 162 Del (DB); (1992) 53 DRJ 653; AIR 1956 SC 593; (1983) 1 SCC 18; (1999) 2 SCC 577; (2005) 6 SCC 733; (2005) 11 SCC 403; (2010) 7 SCC 417; (2010) 8 SCC 1; (1992) 2 SCC 524; (1995) 3 SCC 147; (1996) 5 SCC 539; (2004) 1 SCC 191; (2001) 6 SCC 534 - Referred

        (b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order I, rule 10(2) - Application filed seven years after order for injunction - Suffers from delay and laches - Sale deeds executed in clandestine manner - Not conferring any right in the property - Application rightly rejected by High Court. (Para 38)

        (1995) 6 SCC 50 - Relied upon

        (2005) 6 SCC 733 - Distinguished

        (c) Administration of Justice - Judicial Propriety - Comity of jurisdictions of the Courts - Order of appointment of receiver obtained from Calcutta High Court by suppressing material facts - Delhi High Court appointing receiver - No infirmity. (Para 41)

       Facts of the case:

        Questions of non-joinder of parties and judicial propriety arise in this cases.

       Finding of the Court;

        Appeals not maintainable in view of contumacious conduct of the appellants.

       Result : Appeals dismissed with cost.

       

JUDGMENT

G. S. Singhvi, J.-Leave granted.

2. Whether M/s. Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd., and five other companies (hereinafter described as the appellants), who are said to have purchased the suit property, i.e. 21, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi in violation of the order of injunction passed by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court are entitled to be impleaded as parties to Suit No.425/1993 filed by respondent No.1 – M/s. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. is one of the two questions which arises for consideration in these appeals filed against judgment dated 20.2.2009 of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The other question which needs consideration is whether the Delhi High Court was justified in appointing a receiver with a direction to take possession of the suit property despite the fact that the Calcutta High Court had already appointed a receiver at the instance of M/s. Bhagwati Developers Pvt. Ltd. (for short, ‘Bhagwati Developers’).

3. The suit property was leased by the Secretary of State for India to Sidh Nath Khanna and Sukh Nath Khanna sometime in 1930. After 12 years, the Governor General in Council sanctioned the grant of perpetual lease in favour of one of them, namely, Sidh Nath Khanna. In the family partition which took place in December 1955, the suit property fell to the share of Shri Devi Prasad Khanna, who was one of the heirs of Sidh Nath Khanna. He rented out the same to the Sudan Embassy on 12.9.1962. In October 1977, the name of respondent No.2-Pradeep Kumar Khanna (son of Devi Prasad Khanna), who died during the pendency of the litigation before the High Court and is represented by his legal representatives, was entered in the records of the Ministry of Works and Housing, Land and Development Office and the lease was transferred in his name.

4. In March 1980, respondent No.2 mortgaged the suit property to Shri S.N. Tondon. After 5 years, he entered into a collaboration agreement with Shri Arun Kumar Bhatia (respondent No.3) for construction of a multi-storied building. He also executed an agreement for sale in favour of respondent No.3. In November 1987, respondent No.2 took loan from Shri Avtar Singh and created an equitable mortgage in his favour. On 13.9.1988, respondent No.2 executed an agreement for sale in favour of respondent No.1 for a consideration of Rs.2.5 crores. After some time, respondent No.3 executed assignment deed dated 13.12.1988 in favour of respondent No.2. Simultaneously, the parties cancelled the collaboration agreement. After 3 months, respondent No.2 mortgaged the suit property in favour of respondent No.4. In 1992, respondent Nos. 2 and 4 entered into an agreement whereby the latter agreed to provide various services including the one that he will get the suit property vacated from the Sudan Embassy and for that he will charge Rs.4 crores.

5. The Sudan Embassy vacated the suit property on 12.5.1992 and handed over possession to respondent No.2, who is said to have handed over the same to respondent No.4. On coming to know about the proposed alienation of property by respondent No.2, respondent No.1 filed Suit No.425/1993 in the Delhi High Court for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 13.9.1988, award of damages and injunction. It also filed IA No.1947/1993 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The learned Single Judge passed order dated 18.2.1993 and directed that defendant Nos. 1 and 3 (respondent Nos. 2 and 4 herein) shall not transfer, alienate or part with possession in any manner or create third party rights in respect of the suit property. After receiving summons, respondent Nos.2 and 4 filed IA No. 10730/1993 under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the same was barred by time. The learned Single Judge dismissed the application vide order dated 5.4.1994 and directed that interim order dated 18.2.1993 shall continue.

6. On 19.2.1997, respondent No.2 executed 6 agreements for sale in favour of the appellants for a total c
































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top