VIDUR IMPEX AND TRADERS PVT. LTD. vs TOSH APARTMENTS PVT. LTD.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 Supreme(SC) 546

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, G.S.SINGHVI
VIDUR IMPEX AND TRADERS PVT. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
TOSH APARTMENTS PVT. LTD. – Respondent

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

No cases are explicitly identified as overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law based solely on the provided list. The list predominantly contains references to the case of Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 8 SCC 384, which appears to be a frequently cited and authoritative decision, often described as "laid down principles," "considered," or "reiterated" in subsequent references. There are no direct indications within the list of any case having been explicitly overruled or discredited in later decisions. Therefore, no case law from this list can definitively be categorized as bad law based on the provided information.

Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 8 SCC 384: This case is repeatedly cited as establishing important principles, laid down principles, or being considered by later decisions. Phrases like "after considering," "laid down," "reiterated," "broad principles which should govern," and "principles for disposal" indicate it is a leading authority that has been followed and reaffirmed.

Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd.: Cited multiple times in connection with principles laid down in Vidur Impex, suggesting reaffirmation of principles.

Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd.: Mentioned as a decision that the Supreme Court in Vidur Impex referred to or relied upon, indicating continued judicial reliance.

Several references to the principles of impleadment, jurisdiction, and procedural aspects from Vidur Impex, indicating it is a foundational case frequently followed.

Many references to subsequent decisions that rely on or cite Vidur Impex, without indicating that the case has been questioned or overruled. These references include citations of principles, application in specific contexts, or reiteration of legal standards.

Cases like Harbans Singh (1995) 6 SCC 50 and others are cited in the context of the principles laid down in Vidur Impex, indicating these are used as supporting authorities rather than being overruled or criticized.

Several references to the same case (Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 8 SCC 384) appear in different contexts, sometimes with phrases like "considered," "laid down principles," "reiterated," or "followed," which suggest consistent treatment. However, in the absence of explicit statements of overruling or criticism, the treatment remains generally positive or procedural.

Some references mention the case in the context of procedural principles or as part of a larger discussion, but do not clearly indicate whether the case has been questioned or criticized.

The absence of any language explicitly stating "overruled," "reversed," "criticized," or "discredited" indicates treatment is predominantly affirming or procedural.

Due to the lack of explicit negative treatment or judicial disapproval in the provided list, treatment remains uncertain but generally positive or procedural.

2012 Supreme(SC) 546

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, G.S.SINGHVIVIDUR IMPEX AND TRADERS PVT. LTD. – AppellantVersusTOSH APARTMENTS PVT. LTD. – Respondent

Cases Referred (15)

Judicial Analysis

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, G.S.SINGHVI
VIDUR IMPEX AND TRADERS PVT. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
TOSH APARTMENTS PVT. LTD. – Respondent