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

2002 Supreme(Mad) 1044

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. JAGADEESAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MALAI SUBRAMANIAN
M/s.Sudsun Housing Development (I) Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
G.T.D.Anandaraj - Respondents
Original Side Appeal Nos.346 and 347 of 2002 and CMP.NOS.13114 and 13115 of 2002
Decided On : 23 September 2002

Advocates Appeared: For the Appellant:Vijay Narayan, Advocate. For the Respondents:Nalini Chidambaram, S. Silambalan, Gladys Daniel, Silambanan, Advocates.

The court emphasized that the respondents' grievances lacked merit and allowed the appeals, setting aside the direction of the learned Judge.

Headnote:

Arbitration - Interim Injunction - Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 9 - S.F.Nos. 439/3 and 439/6 to 439/9 - Summary: The court addressed the dispute regarding alterations made by the appellant to the existing sewage channel in a multi-storeyed building complex. The respondents sought interim injunctions to restrain the appellant from dealing with vacant land and unsold flats, citing violations of the sanctioned plan and agreements. The court found that the respondents' grievances lacked merit and allowed the appeals, setting aside the direction of the learned Judge.

Fact of the Case:

The respondents sought interim injunctions to restrain the appellant from dealing with vacant land and unsold flats, citing violations of the sanctioned plan and agreements. The court found that the respondents' grievances lacked merit and allowed the appeals, setting aside the direction of the learned Judge.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondents' grievances lacked merit and allowed the appeals, setting aside the direction of the learned Judge.

Issues: The main issue was the dispute regarding alterations made by the appellant to the existing sewage channel in a multi-storeyed building complex.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the respondents' grievances lacked merit and allowed the appeals, setting aside the direction of the learned Judge.

Final Decision: The original side appeals are allowed. No costs. Consequently, the above CMPs are dismissed as unnecessary.

Judgment :-

S. JAGADEESAN, J.

These appeals have been filed by the appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 5.8.2002 in O.A.Nos.331 and 333 of 2002 filed by the respondents.

2. The respondents fled O.A.Nos.331 to 334 of 2002 under Section 9 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim reliefs till the arbitration proceedings are to be initiated and completed. The respondent in O.S.A.No.346 of 2002 is one Mr.Anandaraj and the respondent in O.S.A.No.347 of 2002 is one Mr.Mohan K.Varma. Mr.Anandaraj filed O.A.Nos.331 and 332 of 2002 respectively seeking orders of interim injunction restraining the appellant from dealing with the vacant land in S.F.Nos.438/2 and 439 part and to restrain the appellant from dealing with 8 flats till the arbitration proceedings are over. The respondent in O.S.A.No.347 of 2002 filed O.A.Nos.333 and 334 of 2002 for identical reliefs.

3. The grievance of the respondents herein is that they purchased two flats constructed by the appellant in S.F.Nos. 439/3 and 439/6 to 439/9. Totally, 144 flats were constructed in the said survey numbers. The appellant owns vacant land in S.F.No.438 on the eastern side of the existing flats. The appellant, while constructing the flats in S.F.No.439, constructed sewage line along S.F.Nos.438/2E and 438/2F and connected the same to the septic tank on the north eastern corner, which is marked in the plan as point A to B. The appellant sold the vacant land in S.F.No.438. Having sold the land, they changed the sewage channel from point A to B to point A to C as marked in the plan.

4. Hence, both the respondents came forward with these applications stating that the appellant is not entitled to alter the existing sewage system and as per the agreements, they have to construct an activated sludge treatment plant inside the complex. Since, in contravention of the sanctioned plan, the appellant had laid the sewage channel along point A to B marked in the plan and now, has altered the same to point A to C, which is also contrary to the agreed terms, the appellant should be restrained from dealing with the vacant land in S.F.Nos.438/2 and 439 part and also 8 unsold flats pending arbitration proceedings. Further, in the affidavits, though they sought for mandatory injunction directing the appellant to restore the existing sewage lines passing through the public road and the land lying on the other side of Gems Park Complex, which is in S.F.Nos.438/2 and 439 part connected to the septic tank situated in the poramboke land, no separate application was filed for such relief.

5. The said applications were contested by the appellant by filing O.A.Nos.1918 to 1921 of 2002 to vacate the interim orders. However, after considering the rival contentions of both the learned counsel, the learned Judge passed an order allowing O.A.Nos.332 and 334 of 2002 and granted interim injunction restraining the appellant from alienating six unsold flats, since two were sold already, and also directed the appellant to file an affidavit of undertaking that they will not sell the six unsold flats. The appellant has no grievance so far as this order of the learned Judge is concerned and hence, the same is not challenged.

6. So far as O.A.Nos.331 and 333 of 2002 filed by the respondents seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the appellant from dealing with the vacant land are concerned, though the learned Judge permitted the appellant to alienate the land, however, imposed a condition that the appellant shall not cause any damage to the septic line A to B as pointed out in the plan and it should be maintained till the appellant provides activated sludge treatment plant inside the complex of the respondents. Now, these appeals have been filed by the appellant so far as the direction issued by the learned Judge in O.A.Nos.331 and 333 of 2002 directing the appellant as well as the purchasers not to cause any damage to the septic line running from point A to B.






































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top