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

2005 Supreme(Bom) 220

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Lok Housing and Constructions Ltd
Versus
Everest Industries Ltd.
Decided on : FEBRUARY 17, 2005

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 6, Rule 17 - Application for amendment of plaint. - An application for amendment of plaint, not bringing totally distinct and different cause of action, liable to be allowed. (2001) 2 SCC 472, 2004 (4) Mh LJ (SC) 488 : (2004) 6 SCC 415 - Relied.

       Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 6, Rule 17, Order 7, Rule 11 - Amendment of pleadings. - Power of Court under Order VI, Rule 17 of CPC to allow amendment of pleadings cannot be restricted or controlled by provisions in Order VII, Rule 11, CPC. AIR 1950 (37) Bom 345, Foll.

Judgment

KAMDAR S. U. , J.

( 1 ) THE present application is filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the plaint in terms of the Schedule which is set out to the said chamber summons. In nutshell, the facts of the present case are as under :

( 2 ) THE original suit is filed against the defendant Everest Industries Ltd. , inter alia seeking the direction that they should give the 2nd plaintiff a fair opportunity to bid for the property by clarifying the ambiguities in the prescirbed format of the required bank guarantee and granting reasonable time thereafter to furnish such prescribed bank guarantee. It is further prayed that thereafter considering the 2nd plaintiffs offer should be considered and if the 2nd plaintiffs offer is the highest then the same should be accepted and necessary documents including the sale-deed should be executed in favour of the plaintiff No. 2. By prayer (b) of the suit, a permanent order and injunction is sought restraining the original defendant from selling, giving for development, or in any manner transferring, disposing and / or dealing with the property till such time as the defendant furnishes the aforesaid particulars sought for in prayer (a) are furnished by him.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff in the present case are the developers and are inter alia carrying out development of the land. The defendant is a company and the sole owner of land together with building and structure standing thereon at village Mulund (West), Bombay. Under an agreement dated 31-7-1990 and 22-6-1993 entered into by and between the plaintiff and the original defendant, the defendant permitted the 1 st plaintiff to develop the residential land for consideration of total sum of Rs. 37. 15 crores on the terms and conditions set out therein. By a further agreement dated 27-7-1995, the defendant permitted the 1st plaintiff to develop the property for a total consideration of Rs. 30 crores on the terms and conditions set out in the said supplementary agreement dated 27-7-1995. On 16-3-1998, the defendant terminated the agreement dated 27-7-1995. In view thereof differences and disputes arose between the parties which were referred to arbitration. On 24-12-1999 a settlement are arrived at by and between the parties and on 29-3-2000, a consent award was passed by the arbitrator.

( 4 ) IT is the case of the plaintiff that in pursuance of the said award the defendant was obliged to carry out certain acts and deeds and that the defendant failed and neglected to do so which resulted in plaintiffs further loss of about Rs. 50/- crores. In the meantime, the defendant filed an Execution application No. 420 of 2002 in this Court for executing the said award passed by the arbitrator. Immediately thereafter the plaintiffs also filed an execution application for executing the said award being Execution Application No. 11 of 2003. A chamber summons in execution was taken out being Chamber summons No. 25 of 2003 in Execution Application No. 420 of 2002 by the plaintiff and sought various reliefs in respect of the obligations which they were required to comply with under the said award. Similar chamber summons was taken out by the plaintiff being Chamber Summons No. 1109 of 2003 in respect of the said award for execution. It is the case of the plaintiffs that during the pendency of the said proceedings the defendants intended to sell the property on 24-1-2003. The 2nd plaintiff wrote a letter seeking to purchase the property for Rs. 47. 5 crores in accordance with the consent award. However, in July, 2003, the defendants invited offers for purchase of the land on a limited tender basis and thus, accordingly, the plaintiff has filed the present suit inter alia seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

( 5 ) DURING the pendency of the present suit, the said property has been sold in favour of Nirmal Lifestyles Ltd. , the respondent herein which is proposed to be impleaded as party defendant No. 2 in the present suit. By the same ame







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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