State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Byrraju Rama Raju vs Enjamuri Papi Reddy on 31 December, 2013
BEFORE THE A
BEFORE
THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
CCIA 587 of 2013 in CC
140/2012
Between:
1) Byrraju Rama Raju
S/o. Rama Linga Raju
Erstwhile Director
Maytas Properties Ltd.
R/o. B1, Kavuri Crosswinds
Apartments, Road No. 14
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
3) Datla
Gopala Krishnam Raju
Erstwhile Director,
Maytas Properties Ltd.,
R/o. H-17, Tulasi Apartments
Madhura Nagar, S.R. Nagar
Hyderabad-500 038.
4) D.V.S. Subba
Raju
Erstwhile Director,
Maytas Properties Ltd.,
R/o. Flat No. 102, Plot No. 97
Dhanunjaya Nest
Rajiv Nagar, Hyderabad-45. *** Petitioners/
O.Ps.
2 to 4.
And
1) Enjamuri Papi Reddy
S/o. E. Raji Reddy
ii) Shashi Rekha Enjamuri
W/o. E. Papi
Reddy
Both are temporarily now
R/o. 1-2-593/48
Gaganmahal Colony
Domalguda
Hyderabad-500 029. *** Respondents Complainants
2) Maytas
Properties Ltd.
Maytas Hill County
Bachupally, Miyapur
Hyderabad-500 072
Rep. by its Managing Director *** Respondent/
O.P.
No. 1
CCIA 1749 of 2013 in CC
140/2012
Between:
Enjamuri Papi Reddy
S/o. E. Raji Reddy
Shashi Rekha Enjamuri
W/o. E. Papi
Reddy
Both are R/o. 1-2-593/48
Gaganmahal Colony
Domalguda
Hyderabad-500 029. *** Petitioners/
Complainants
And
1) Maytas
Properties Ltd.
Maytas Hill County
Bachupally, Miyapur
Hyderabad-500 072
Rep. by its Managing Director
2) Byrraju Rama Raju
S/o. Rama Linga Raju
Erstwhile Director
Maytas Properties Ltd.
R/o. B1, Kavuri Crosswinds
Apartments, Road No. 14
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
3) Datla
Gopala Krishnam Raju
Erstwhile Director,
Maytas Properties Ltd.,
R/o. H-17, Tulasi Apartments
Madhura Nagar, S.R. Nagar
Hyderabad-500 038.
4) D.V.S.
Subba Raju
Erstwhile Director,
Maytas Properties Ltd.,
R/o. Flat No. 102, Plot No. 97
Dhanunjaya Nest
Rajiv Nagar, Hyderabad-45. *** Respondents/
O.Ps.
1 to 4
5) Arun K.
Saha
S/o. Brindaban Chandra Saha
Chairman, Maytas Properties Ltd.
D.No. 8-2-120/113/3
4th Floor, Sanali Info Park
Road No. 2, Banjara Hills
Hyderabad-500 033.
6) Md.
Kattar
Managing Director
Maytas Properties Ltd.
D.No. 8-2-120/113/3
4th Floor, Sanali Info Park
Road No. 2, Banjara Hills
Hyderabad-500 033.
7) Ramesh
Bawa
S/o. Sharadhanand Bawa
Director, Maytas Properties Ltd.
D.No. 8-2-120/113/3
4th Floor, Sanali Info Park
Road No. 2, Banjara Hills
Hyderabad-500 033.
8) Ved Kumar Jain
S/o. Padam Sain Jain
Nominee Director
Maytas Properties Ltd.
D.No. 8-2-120/113/3
4th Floor, Sanali Info Park
Road No. 2, Banjara Hills
Hyderabad-500 033. *** Respondents/
Proposed Ops.
Counsel for the Complainants: M/s. B. Vijaysen Reddy
Counsel for the
Opposite Parties: M/s. K. Visweshwara Reddy
M/s. V. K. Naidu
CORAM:
SRI R.L. NARASIMHA RAO, PRESIDING MEMBER
SRI T. ASHO
KUMAR, MEMBER
&
SRI S. BHUJANGA RAO, MEMBER
ORAL
ORDER:31/12/2013 (Per Sri R. L. Narasimha Rao, Member) ***
1) CCIA No. 587 of 2013 has been filed by Ops 2 to 4 to strike off their names in CC No. 140/2012 filed by the complainant as bad under law as they are no longer Directors of M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd.
2) CCIA No. 1749 of 2013 has been filed by the complainants to implead the proposed parties as Opposite Parties in place of Ops 2 to 4 consequent on change of Board of Directors of M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd.
3) Since both these applications involve common questions of fact and law and with regard of deleting of past directors and impleading the present directors of M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd., from the array of parties they are being disposed of by common order:
4) Admittedly, the complainants have filed the CC seeking for direction to the Opposite Parties to refund the sale consideration of Rs. 82,00,584/- with interest @ 18% p.a., together with compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs and costs of Rs. 2 lakhs. At the time of filing the complaint the complainants have shown M/s.
Maytas Properties Ltd., as Op1, Byraju Rama Raju, Datla Gopala Krishnam Raju and Datla Venkata Satya Subba Raju being directors of Maytas Properties Ltd., as Ops 2 to 4 respectively.
The matter is coming up for evidence. The complainants have filed the aforesaid application for impleading the proposed parties in place of Ops 2 to 4 on the ground that there is change of Board of Directors of Op1 Company and that they are necessary parties to the lis. The Ops 2 to 4 filed aforementioned application to delete their names from the array of opposite parties as they are no longer directors of M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd., As per the CLB order M/s. IL&FS Group has taken over the affairs of Op1 company by inducting new directors. In the light of their resignation and consequent on change of directors of M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd., the Ops 2 to 4 submitted that they are not liable and no way concerned or connected with the affairs of the Op1 Company. In support of their contention, the Ops 2 to 4 filed Form-32 to establish that they are no longer directors of Op1 Company and the proposed parties have taken over the affairs of M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd.
5) It is important to note that the agreement of sale, sale deed and development agreement etc., entered into between the parties were pertaining to the years 2006 to 2008 and at that point of time the Ops 2 to 4 were at the helm of affairs of Op1 Company. They played key role in launching this project and in mobilization of funds from the general public by issuing rosy brochures and by making promises that they would provide palatial flats, apartments with umpteen amenities. For various reasons the project could not be materialized. Though the Ops 1 to 4 received substantial portion of sale consideration, they failed to fulfil their part of contract.
6) It is pertinent to note that when similar complaints were filed before this Commission against the very same Ops 1 to 4 and others this Commission has directed the Ops to refund the amounts paid by the complainants with interest etc., and the same was carried up to the Apex Court by filing SLPs which were ultimately dismissed.
7) The Honble National Commission in Mahindera Lifespace Developers Ltd. Vs. Mr. Sunil Jasuja in R.P. No. 97/2011 and batch decided on 15.5.2013 held that :
It is well settled that a person may also be added as a party to the suit, even though he is not a necessary party and no relief is claimed against him, if his presence is necessary for complete and final decision of the questions involved in the suit. In other words, if in the opinion of the court, the presence of a person may be helpful in effectually adjudicating upon all points in dispute, the court has power to direct that he should be added as a party to the suit. Such a person is called the proper party as distinguished from necessary party.
15. It is also well settled that plaintiff is dominus litis and normally it is for him to select his adversary from whom he seeks relief and it is not for a court to ask him to join any other person as a party to the suit. But it is equally well settled that the matter has to be adjudicated on merits by the court. It is, therefore, the duty of the court to keep in mind a relevant consideration that as far as possible, multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided. If the court feels that in case a person is not impleaded as a party, all questions raised in the suit cannot be finally, completely and effectually decided and there is likelihood of another proceeding which can be avoided by impleading such person as a party to the suit, notwithstanding an objection by the plaintiff, he may be joined as a party since his presence before the court is found necessary.
16. Honble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Shivnath Mishra alias Gadasa Guru (1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases 147, observed;
though the court may have power to strike out the name of a party improperly joined or add a party either on application or without application of either party, but the condition precedent is that the court must be satisfied that the presence of the party to be added, would be necessary in order to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. To bring a person as party-defendant is not a substantive right but one of procedure and the court has discretion in its proper exercise. The object of the rule is to bring on record all the persons who are parties to the dispute relating to the subject-matter so that the dispute may be determined in their presence at the same time without any protraction, inconvenience and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
8) As the dispute involved in this matter is pertaining to the years 2006 to 2008 and at the relevant time the Ops 2 to 4 are directors of Op1 company, we are of the considered opinion that their names cannot be deleted and their liability or otherwise would be considered at the final disposal of the complaint. Apart from that it is not known what is the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entered into between the present directors and the erstwhile directors of M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd., It is also not known as to their respective liability with regard to complaints filed before various Fora by various complaints.
9) For the preceding reasons, we are of the view that the proposed parties viz., Mr. Arun Kumar Saha, Mr. Md. Khattar and Mr. Ramesh Bawa shall be impleaded as Ops 5 to
7. However, the prayer of complainants to implead Mr. Ved Kumar Jain is declined as he is a Nominee Director appointed by the Central Government.
10) In the result the application filed by Ops 2 to 4 for deletion of their names is dismissed. The application filed by complainants to implead Mr. Arun Kumar Saha, Mr. Md. Khattar and Mr. Ramesh Bawa as Opposite Parties is allowed. The complainants are directed to file duly amended neat copy of complaint by 30.1.2014 and the Ops 5 to 7 to file their written version.
11) The applications are disposed off accordingly. No costs.
1) _______________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER
2) ________________________________ MEMBER
3) ________________________________ MEMBER *pnr UP LOAD O.K.