Telangana High Court

M/S. Shreemukh Realtors Vasavi ... vs M/S. Indya Ventures P Ltd on 21 January, 2021

Bench: T.Amarnath Goud

 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

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 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

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;

(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....