LexVIDUR IMPEX AND TRADERS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS versus TOSH APARTMENTS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 10 S.C.R. 307 VIDUR IMPEX AND TRADERS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS v. TOSH APARTMENTS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS (Civil appeal No. 5918 of 2012 etc.) AUGUST 21, 2012 [G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. I r. 10(2) and Or. XL A 8 - Agreement for sale in respect of suit property by R-2 in C favour of R-1 - Thereafter R-2 giving possession of property to R-4 - Suit for specific performance by R-1, before Delhi High Court - Interim injunction by Delhi High Court from transferring or alienating the property - R-2 in violation of interim order executed sale deeds in favour of appellants - D The appellants further executing agreement for sale in favour of Developers - Delhi High Court appointing Receiver - Developers filing case against the appellants in Calcutta for execution of sale deed in their favour - Calcutta High Court directing the appellants to execute sale deed in favour of E Developers and also appointed a Receiver- Delhi High Court restraining the appellants, the Developer and the Receiver appointed by Calcutta High Court from taking possession of the property - Calcutta High Court when came to know about the pending litigation before Delhi High Court, made its order F subject to the order of Delhi High Court - Appellant's application for impleadment in the suit filed by R-1 dismissed by Delhi High Court - The application of Developer seeking continuation of Receiver appointed by Calcutta High Court also dismissed - By impugned order Division Bench of Delhi G High Court upheld the three orders of Single Judge of Delhi High Court in rejecting the application for impleadment and the application for continuation of Receiver appointed by Calcutta High Court and in appointing the Receiver - On 307 H 308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 10 S.C.R. A appeal, held: The impleadment df appellant and Developers in the suit was rightly rejected - Court can implead a 'necessary party' or a 'proper p~rty' - In a suit for specific performance, a purchaser can be impleaded, if his conduct is above board and whose application for impleadment is filed B within reasonable time - The appellants and the Developers were neither necessary nor proper parties - They were strangers to the agreement for sale deed executed in favour of R-1 - Sale was executed in favour of the appellants and further by appellants in favour of Developers in violation of C interim injunction in the suit - The application was also highly belated - Delhi High Court was right in appointing the Receiver and in rejecting the continuation of the Receiver appointed by Calcutta High Court - In the instant case, doctrine of comity of jurisdictions of courts, cannot be invoked as the order of Calcutta High Court was obtained by D concealing the fact of pending litigation before Delhi High Court - The appellants and the Developers imposed with cost of Rs. 5 lakhs each for the conduct of suppressing facts from Calcutta High Court - Doctrine of comity of jurisdiction of courts. E F Words and Phrases : 'Necessary party' and 'Proper party' - Meaning of, in the context of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Respondent No. 2 (owner of the suit property) executed an agreement for sale in favour of respondent No. 1 on 13.9.1988. In 1992 respondent No. 2 handed over the possession of the suit property to respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 1 on coming to know about the G alienation for the property to respondent No. 4, filed suit No. 42511993 in Delhi High Court for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 13.9.1988. The High Court by interim order dated 18.2.1993 restrained respondent Nos. 2 and 4 from transferring, alienating or part with H VIDUR IMPEX AND TRADERS PVT. LTD. v. TOSH 309 APARTMENTS PVT. LTD. possession or create third party interest in the suit A property. On 19.2.1997, respondent No. 2 executed 6 agreements for sale in favour of the 6 appellant- Companies (in Civil Appeal No. 5918/12) and executed 6 B sale-deeds in their favour on 30.5.1997. In the meantime, the appellant-Companies executed agreement for sale in favour of the Developers (appellant in Civil Appeal No. 5917/12) by agreement dated 18.3.1997. Thereupon, respondent No. 1 filed contempt petition against C respondent Nos. 2 and 4 and the appellants. High Court entertained the petition against respondent Nos. 2 and 4 but declined to do so qua the appellants observing that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.