Vgn Stafford Flat Owners Welfare ... vs Vgn Projects Estates Pvt. Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 22964 Mad

                                                             OSA (CAD) Nos.108 & 110 of 2021



                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                             DATED:    24.11.2021

                                                   CORAM :

                                   THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,
                                             ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                      AND
                                    THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU


                                        OSA (CAD) Nos.108 & 110 of 2021


                     VGN Stafford Flat Owners Welfare Association
                     Rep. by its President
                     B.A.Mani Mozhi Arasu
                     Having its registered office at
                     VGN Staford
                     Sudharasana Street
                     Thirumalaivasan Nagar
                     Thirumullaivoyal                                    Appellant in
                     Chennai 600 062.                             ..     both OSAs.

                                                      Vs.

                     VGN Projects Estates Pvt. Ltd.
                     (Formerly known as VGN Property
                        Developers Private Limited
                     Rep. by its Authorized Signatory
                     A.Rangappan
                     Having its office at
                     No.153, Wallace Garden 2nd Street
                     Nungambakkam                                        Respondent in

Chennai 600 006. .. both OSAs.

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis OSA (CAD) Nos.108 & 110 of 2021

Prayer: Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent read with Order XXXVI, Rule 1 of O.S.Rules against the common order dated 22.09.2021 made in O.A.No.544 of 2021 and O.A.No.543 of 2021 respectively.

For the Appellant : Mr.Pradeep Jayaraman

For the Respondent : Mr.P.R.Raman, S.C.

For Mr.A.Umasankar

COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)

These appeals have been preferred to challenge the interim

order dated 22.09.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in

OA.Nos.544 and 543 of 2021 respectively. By the said order, the

interim order granted on 13.09.2021 was extended till 22.10.2021.

2. It is a case where a suit was preferred by the non-appellant

with the following prayers:

"21. The plaintiff therefore prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass judgment and

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis OSA (CAD) Nos.108 & 110 of 2021

decree against the defendant:

a) Directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,41,85,458/- being the total maintenance charges payable to the plaintiff which is inclusive of the maintenance charges collected as on date by the defendant in violation of the agreement, unpaid maintenance charges, other dues from the members/ flat owners of "VGN STAFFORD" residential complex by breaching the terms of the agreement dated 21.10.2019 along with future interest at the rate of Rs.18% per annum thereon from the date of the Plaint, till realization;

b) For Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant, their men, agents, servants or anyone authorized by them from in any manner, collecting or demanding the maintenance charges from the members/flat owners of "VGN STAFFORD" residential complex for the periods from August 2021 to October 2021 and thereby continue violating the plaintiff's right to collect the same as per the maintenance agreement dated 21.10.2019;

c) For Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant from awarding the contract for maintenance of the "VGN STAFFORD" residential complex to any third party during the subsistence of

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis OSA (CAD) Nos.108 & 110 of 2021

maintenance agreement dated 21.10.2019;

d) and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit proper and thus render justice."

3. Pending that suit, the appellant herein terminated the

agreement contract with the non-appellant, followed by the

assignment of maintenance work to a new contractor. The grievance

of the appellant is about the ignorance of the termination of the

contract with the non-appellant and the assignment of work to the

new contractor. In the order dated 13.09.2021, the learned Single

Judge recorded subsistence of valid contract despite its termination.

Challenge to the order dated 13.09.2021 has been made in view of

the above.

4. The fact further reveals that subsequently, a detailed order

was passed on 22.09.2021 and is under challenge. The learned

Single Judge had directed the parties to sit across and to exchange

the statement of accounts on or before 31st October, 2021. The

direction aforesaid was made after taking note of the termination of

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis OSA (CAD) Nos.108 & 110 of 2021

the contract of the non-appellant and other development in the

case.

5. The challenge to the said order has been made on the

ground that despite the termination of contract with the non-

appellant, the interim order dated 13.09.2021 was extended till

22.10.2021.

6. Learned counsel for the non-appellant submits that if the

duration of the contract is taken into consideration, it was to expire

in the month of October, 2021. He further submits that the

amendment of the plaint challenging the order of termination was

sought and permitted by Court on 22.09.2021 itself. In any case,

the non-appellant is not eager to continue with the contract, but

wants settlement of the accounts, so that due amount is paid

without further delay. The non-appellant would not press for

continuation of the agreement, though challenge to termination may

be pressed, but the appellant should sit across with the non-

appellant, as has been directed by learned Single Judge.

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis OSA (CAD) Nos.108 & 110 of 2021

7. As regards settlement of accounts, learned counsel for the

appellant has no issue, rather he is in agreement to settle the

accounts.

8. In view of the above and in the changed circumstances, we

dispose of these appeals, by modifying the orders dated 13.09.2021

and 22.09.2021 in the following terms:

(i) the non-appellant would not press the order dated

13.09.2021 for continuance of the contract with the appellant,

though they have challenged the order of termination by amending

the plaint and accordingly, while pressing the plaint for challenge to

the order of termination of contract, they would not pray for

continuance of the contract beyond 31st October 2021;

(ii) the work assigned to the new contractor may continue;

(iii) the appellant and the non-appellant shall sit across and

exchange the statement of account so as to settle the accounts; and

(iv) the date given by the learned Single Judge expired on 31st

October, 2021 and thus, the same is extended till 31st December,

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis OSA (CAD) Nos.108 & 110 of 2021

2021.

9. The orders dated 13.09.2021 and 22.09.2021 are modified

as above. There will be no order as to costs. CMP Nos.18474 and

18532 of 2021 are closed.

                                                             (M.N.B., ACJ.)       (P.D.A., J.)
                                                                       24.11.2021
                     Index : Yes/No

                     kpl




                     ___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis OSA (CAD) Nos.108 & 110 of 2021

M.N.BHANDARI, ACJ AND P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J.

(kpl)

OSA (CAD) Nos.108 & 110 of 2021

24.11.2021

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis