HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD
****
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1420 OF 2020
Between:
M/s. Shreemukh Realtors Vasavi Group
....Petitioner
And
M/s. Indya Ventures P. Ltd.
....Respondent
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 21.01.2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
_________________________
T.AMARNATH GOUD, J
2
*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1420 OF 2020
% DATED 21st JANUARY, 2021
# M/s. Shreemukh Realtors Vasavi Group
... Petitioner
Vs.
$ M/s. Indya Ventures P. Ltd.
.. Respondent
<Gist:
>Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner Sri D. Madhava Rao
^Counsel for the Respondent Sri Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao
? CASES REFERRED:
1 (1994) 4 SCC 225
2 (1993) 3 SCC 161
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
CRP No.1420 OF 2020
ORDER:
1 The petitioner assails the order dated 10.12.2020 passed in I.A.No.2158 of 2020 in O.S.No.832 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy whereunder the trial Court directed both parties to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit schedule property during the pendency of the I.A.
2 The facts germane for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition, in nutshell, are that the respondent / plaintiff instituted the above said suit against the petitioner, for perpetual injunction, stating that both petitioner and the respondent are companies and are having acquaintance with each other and were in transaction. Upon an oral agreement between both parties in the month of October 2020, the petitioner has agreed to sell a total extent of Ac.20-25 guntas in Sy.Nos.379, 382, 383 and 307 situated at Nandikandi village & Grampanchayat, Sadasivpet Mandal, Sanga Reddy District to the respondent for a total sum of Rs.18,23,40,000/-. The petitioner under different installments paid a sum of Rs.2,90,00,000/- to the respondent. The respondent was put in possession of the property and was allowed to perform pooja on 25.11.2020 and to carry out works in the suit schedule property. The allegation was that on 05.12.2020 the petitioner sent some antisocial elements to the property and asked the respondent not to do further work and threatened the 4 respondent with dire consequences if proceed further. It was further alleged that on 11.11.2020 the petitioner sent a message to the respondent saying that the partners of the petitioner company are objecting and that they have not received advance as per schedule committed and that the deal cancelled. It is the further case of the respondent that even after the said communication dated 11.11.2020, the respondent paid further sum of Rs.50.00 lakhs through RTGS after deliberations and upon the advice of the petitioner. While the petitioner is still interfering with the suit schedule property, the respondent filed I.A.No.2158 of 2020 seeking temporary injunction pending disposal of the main suit restraining the petitioner and his men from interfering with the suit schedule property. 3 The trial Court, having heard the learned counsel for the respondent, by order dated 10.12.2020 directed both parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule property, which order is impugned in this Civil Revision Petition. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant found fault with the impugned order since the same was an ex parte order and was not restricted for limited period. The learned counsel placed reliance on the ratio laid down in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund V. Kartick Das1 and Shiv Kumar Chadha V. Municipal Corporation of Delhi2 in support of his contentions. 1 (1994) 4 SCC 225 2 (1993) 3 SCC 161 5 5 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff submitted that the petitioner having received part consideration of Rs.2,90,00,000/- and put the respondent in possession of the suit schedule property, cannot now turn around and cancel the agreement to which action he has no manner of right. The petitioner ought to have contested the matter before the trial Court by filing a counter and vacate stay petitions. Instead, he approached this Court straight away under Article 227 of the Constitution of India without exhausting the remedy before the trial Court. 6 Now the point for determination in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the trial Court is justified in ordering status quo without restricting for a limited period. 7 It is apparent from the record that the payments have been made by the respondent to the petitioner through RTGS and that receipt of said payments was not denied by the petitioner. Even the oral agreement was also not denied by the petitioner, except pointing out the laches on the part of the respondent that on which date the respondent was put in possession of the property. It is to be noted that when the petitioner has informed the respondent on 11.11.2020 that the deal was cancelled, he cannot accept Rs.50,00,000/- on 21.11.2020 from the respondent. The conduct of the petitioner on that aspect cannot be appreciated. During the course of arguments, when this Court asked the counsel for the petitioner that whether the amount of Rs.2,90,00,000/- is still lying with 6 the petitioner or the same is returned to the respondent, the learned counsel informed this Court that the said amount is still with the petitioner only. In such scenario, it cannot be said that the petitioner has approached this Court with clean hands and more so his approach towards the respondent is unfair. Further, the petitioner is estopped from saying that the deal is cancelled since he is withholding the amounts paid by the respondent.
8 It is further pertinent to note that the parties to the litigation being companies, under the eye of law, an oral agreement cannot be accepted. There cannot be an oral agreement between two companies as per Companies Act. The trial Court has not granted any ex parte order of injunction in favour of the respondent but only to protect the suit schedule property the trial Court has passed an order of status quo to be maintained by both parties. Therefore, it is always open to the petitioner to approach the trial Court and contest the matter. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not for this Court to go into other issues except to decide the validity of the order passed by the court below. Since the petitioner has a remedy before the trial Court and to lead evidence, this Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. 9 In Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund case (1 cited supra) the Hon'ble apex Court held at para No.36 as under:
36. As a principle, ex parte injunction could be granted only under exceptional circumstances. The factors which should weigh with the court in the grant of ex parte injunction are-
(a) whether irreparable or serious mischief will ensue to the plaintiff;7
(b) whether the refusal of ex parte injunction would involve greater injustice than the grant of it would involve;
(c) the court will also consider the time at which the plaintiff first had notice of the act complained so that the making of improper order against a party in his absence is prevented;
(d) the court will consider whether the plaintiff had acquiesced for sometime and in such circumstances it will not grant ex parte injunction;
(e) the court would expect a party applying for ex parte injunction to show utmost good faith in making the application.
(f) even if granted, the ex parte injunction would be for a limited period of time.
(g) General principles like prima facie case balance of convenience and irreparable loss would also be considered by the court.
10 In Shiv Kumar Chadha case (2 cited supra) the Hon'ble apex Court held at para No.35 as under:
As such whenever a Court considers it necessary in the facts and circumstances of a particular case to pass an order of injunction without notice to other side. It must record the reasons for doing so and should take into consideration, while passing an order of injunction, all relevant factors, including as to how the object of granting injunction itself shall be defeated if an ex parte order is not passed. But any such ex parte order should be in force upto a particular date before which the plaintiff should be required to serve the notice on the defendant concerned. In the Supreme Court Practice 1993, Vol. 1, at page 514, reference has been made to the views of the English Courts saying:- "Exparte injunctions are for cases of real urgency where there has been a true impossibility of giving notice of motion....
An ex parte injunction should generally be until a certain day, usually the next motion day. . . ."
11 The principle laid down in the cases cited supra have no relevance to the facts of the case on hand. In the above cases the principle was that when the Court should grant injunction. But here in the case on hand the trial Court ordered status quo but not granted any injunction in favour of the respondent to decide its validity. In the case on hand, the agreement said to have been entered into between the parties was only an oral agreement but not a written agreement upon which it is not proper to grant injunction without due enquiry; more so both petitioner and respondent are companies but not individuals. The petitioner on one hand cannot withhold the amount of 8 Rs.2,90,00,000/- and also the land. His protest against the respondent is unfair.
12 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the order under revision needs no interference by this Court in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. Needless to observe that the petitioner is always at liberty to approach the trial Court and contest the matter, if it is so advised. 13 In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner herein to approach the trial Court to take steps as observed above. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall also stand dismissed.
__________________________ T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.
Date:21.01.2021.
L.R.Copy to be marked B/o Kvsn