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

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Vellore Institute of Technology (VIT) – Appellant
Versus
B.V.Reddy Enterprises Private Limited – Respondent
A 8678/2018



Advocates:
['SARAVANAN A', '', 'K Purushothaman', 'G Viswanathan', 'S Francis']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2020

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

A.No.8678 of 2018

in

C.S. No.285 of 2014

B.V.Reddy Enterprises Private Limited,

Rep. by its Director Mr.V.Dinesh Reddy,

having Registered Office at

No.232, Kilpauk Garden Road, Kilpauk,

Chennai-600 010

Now at

Old No.31, New No.7, Swarna Home,

1st Floor, Vadivelu Street,

Perambur, Chennai-600 011.

..Plaintiff

-Vs.-

1.Mr.S.Murali Mani,

S/o.late C.S.Mani

2.Mr.S.Balan Mani

S/o.Late C.S.Mani

Both are residing at No.16-A/10,

W.E.A., Karol Bagh,

New Delhi-110 005

Represented by their Power Agent

Mr.Arjunlal Sunderdas,

No.23, Anderson Road,

Chennai-600 006.

3.Mr.Arjunlal Sunderdas,

S/o.Mr.K.Sunderdas,

No.23, Anderson Road,

Chennai-600 006.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2

4.S.M.Lal,

S/o.K.Sunderdas

No.7, Subbarao Avenue 1st Street,

Chennai 600 006.

(*)5.The Official Assignee

High Court, Madras,

Representing the Estate of Arjunlal Sundardas

(Insolvent)

(*) 5th defendant impleaded as per order dated 17.08.2015 in Application

No.4741 of 2015

A.No.8678 of 2018:

Vellore Institute of Technology(VIT)

Rep by its Trustee G.V.Selvam

having Office at No.54, Thennamaram Street,

Vellore, Vellore District.

..Applicant/Third Party

-Vs.-

1.B.V.Reddy Enterprises Private Limited,

Rep. by its Director Mr.V.Dinesh Reddy,

having Registered Office at

No.232, Kilpauk Garden Road, Kilpauk,

Chennai-600 010

Now at

Old No.31, New No.7, Swarna Home,

1st Floor, Vadivelu Street,

Perambur, Chennai-600 011.

..1st Respondent/Plaintiff

2.Mr.S.Murali Mani,

S/o.Late Mr.C.S.Mani

3.Mr.S.Balan Mani

S/o.Late Mr.C.S.Mani

Both are residing at No.16-A/10,

W.E.A., Karol Bagh,

New Delhi-110 005

Represented by their Power Agent

Mr.Arjunlal Sunderdas,

No.23, Anderson Road,

Chennai-600 006.

..2nd & 3rd Respondents/D1 & D2 Defendants

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3

4.Mr.Arjunlal Sunderdas,

S/o.Mr.K.Sunderdas,

No.23, Anderson Road,

Chennai-600 006.

..4th Respondent/D3 Defendant

5.S.M.Lal,

S/o.K.Sunderdas

No.7, Subbarao Avenue 1st Street,

Chennai 600 006.

..5th Respondent/D4 Defendant

6.The Official Assignee

High Court, Madras,

Representing the Estate ofArjunlal Sundardas

(Insolvent)

..6th Respondent/D5 Defendant

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to

implead the applicant/third party as 6th defendant in the above suit before

this Hon'ble Court.

This Application coming on this day before this court for

hearing, the Court made the following Order:

In a suit filed for specific performance of the sale agreement,

the applicant herein, who is a third party seeks to implead himself on the

ground that he has some substantial interest in the property through his

subsequential sale agreement and any decision made in his absence would

seriously affect him and would cause great prejudice to him. Therefore, he

pleads that he shall be impleaded as a party to the suit.

2. According to the applicant, one B.V.Reddy Enterprises

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4

Private Limited, the first respondent / plaintiff filed a suit for specific

performance of a sale agreement dated 13.12.2006 in C.S.No.285 of 2014.

However, after cancellation of the sale agreement with the first respondent,

the defendants in the above suit / respondents 2 to 5 herein have executed a

sale agreement in favour of the applicant/third party after having received

the entire sale consideration of Rs.21 Crores. The defendants 1 and 2 acting

through the third defendant have failed to perform their part of obligation

and therefore, he also filed a suit for specific performance in C.S.No.317 of

2014. Since he had parted with the entire sale consideration of Rs.21 Crores,

he has a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the suit.

Unless he is made as a party, he will not be knowing anything about the

progress of the proceeding. If the owners, who have executed a sale

ag

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