Bangalore District Court
Srinivas Rao vs M/S Maxworth Realty India Ltd on 11 July, 2017
C.R.P. 67) Govt. Of Karnataka
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGEMENTS IN SUITS
Form No.9(Civil)
Title sheet for
Judgment in Suits
(R.P.91)
IN THE COURT OF LXVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY.
(CCH.NO.67)
Dated, this the 11th day of July, 2017
PRESENT
SRI. A.VIJAYAN., B.A.(LAW), LL.M.
LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
O.S.NO.9232/2015
PLAINTIFFS Srinivas Rao.
S/o Sri.I.Subba Rao,
Aged about Major,
No.369. I Floor,6th Main Road,
I Block, Koramangala,
Bangalore - 560 034.
Now at: State Bank of Mysore,
Vontikoppal Branch, Temple Street,
No.27, 5th Main Road, V.V.Mohalla,
Mysore - 570 002.
( By Sri.RNN, Advocate)
- V E R S U S -
DEFENDANTS 1. M/s Maxworth Realty India Ltd.
A company registered under the Indian
Companies Act 1956,
Having its Corporate Office at "KMP" house,
No.12/2, Yamuna Bai Road, Madhavanagar,
Bangalore 560 001.
Duly represented by its Chairman and Managing
Director.
2 O.S.9232/2015
2. The Chairman and Managing Director,
M/s Maworth Realty India Ltd.
A Company registered under the Indian
Companies Act 1956,
Having its Corporate Office at KMP House,
No.12/2, Yamuna Bai Road, Madhavanagar,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The Vice President (Marketing),
M/s Maxworth Realty India Limited,
A Company registered under the Indian
Companies Act 1956,
Having its Corporate Office at KMP House,
No.12/2, Yamuna Bai Road, Madhavanagar,
Bangalore - 560 001.
(By Sri.VRP, Advocate)
Date of institution of the suit : 07.11.2015
Nature of the suit (suit on Money Suit
pronote, suit for declaration and
possession suit for injunction,etc) :
Date of the commencement of 25.04.2016
recording of the evidence :
Date on which the Judgment was
pronounced : 11.07.2017
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
01 08 04
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A.VIJAYAN.)
LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
Bangalore.
3 O.S.9232/2015
J U D G M E N T
The Plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of money and to grant such other appropriate order this court deem fit in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiffs case is that:
The defendant No.1 is a public Ltd. Company registered duly registered with the Registrar of Companies under the Indian Companies and having its Corporate office at Bangalore. The company is being represented by 2nd defendant and 3rd defendant also responsible for day to day affairs of the company. The 1st defendant company is engaged in the business of realty and other allied business and promotes its business through formation of residential layouts, consisting of residential sites of different dimensions. The 1st defendant company after formation of residential layouts will offer the sites to the general public to purchase the same for suitable sale consideration as may be 4 O.S.9232/2015 determined by the first defendant company and the other defendants herein. 1st defendant being developers in the field of reality and other allied business had advertised and canvassed that they are developing lands in Sy.149/1, situated at Suradenapura village, Hesaragatta hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore and defendant had canvassed sale of sites in the layout formed in the lands situated in the name and style Max Medows 3, after seeing advertisements plaintiff had negotiation with defendant company and assured and paid advance amount to purchase sites No.323, 326 in the layout formed by the defendant company each site measuring 1000 sq.ft. plaintiff also paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- through cheque bearing No.882442 dated: 12.9.2012 drawn on SBM, Koramangala 6th Block Branch, Bangalore as a token of advance and said representatives have issued receipt dated: 3.9.2012 for having collected the cheque. Again on 7.11.2012 he had issued cheque bearing No.882444 dated:7.11.2012 and cheque bearing No.882443 on 7.11.2012 drawn on SBM, Koramangala 5 O.S.9232/2015 6th Block Branch, Bangalore for sum of Rs.2,60,000/- each. Totally Rs.7,20,000/- for which the defendant company had issued receipt dated: 7.11.2012. On 19.11.2012 defendant company executed two assignment agreement for conveyance of said sites in to his name measuring 1200 Sq.Ft. each and assured that within the period of 180 days after given sanction by concerned town planning authority and also Bangalore International Airport Planning Authority, but defendant failed to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, since defendant has not executed sale deed in favour of plaintiff after elapse 180 days plaintiff has issued legal notices to defendant claiming Rs.7,20,000/- dated:
13.10.2015 through RPAD to defendant Nos.2 and 3, after receipt of notices also defendants have remained silent, not replied to the said notice, hence, as on the date of filing the suit defendant has to pay Rs.10,43,674/- along with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. form the date of suit till the date of realization 6 O.S.9232/2015 including costs and advocate fee incurred thereon in the interest of justice and equity.
3. On the other hand in response to suit summons the defendant appeared through advocate and filed written statement admitting all plaint averments and prayed this court to dispose this suit with direction for refunding the advance amount of Rs.7,20,000/- without interest and any costs. Hence, prayed this court to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff in the interest of justice and equity.
4. During the course of trial Plaintiff himself as PW1 and got marked documents P.1 to P.12. On the other hand defendant himself examined as DW1 and got marked Documents Ex.D.1 and cross examined himself.
5. Heard arguments on both sides and case posted for Judgment.
6. On the above said facts and circumstances of the case and materials case papers on record, points that arise for consideration are as under: 7 O.S.9232/2015
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit filed by him for recovery of advance amount paid to defendant along with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. form 19.11.2012 to 1.11.2015 is maintainable under Law?
2. Whether defendant prove that they are ready and willing to perform their part of contract as on the date of filing the suit as per assignment deed dated: 19.11.2012?
3. What decree or Order ?
7. My findings on the above points are as under
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative Issue No.2 : In the Negative Issue No.3: As per order for the following:
REASONS
8. Issue No.1 and 2: Since Issue Nos. 1 and 2 are interlinked with each other they are taken up together for discussion.
8 O.S.9232/2015Plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant for the recovery of money. In this case since there is admission of liability by the defendant company and prayed this court to dispose off this case directing defendant only for payment of Rs.7,20,000/- without interest and costs, there is no room for discussion and analysis to find truth whether defendant is liable to pay the amount as prayed in the plaint. Further in this case defendant during the course of trial also clearly admitted that the company has executed two assignment deeds which are marked as Ex.P.4 and P.5 but not the sale agreement. In the assignment deed Clause-3 contains that within a period of 180 days from the date of assignment deed company has agreed to executed absolute sale deed in respect of sites shown in ex.P.4 and P.5. It is clearly admitted that Ex.P.4 and P.5 were executed in the 2012 at that time there was no sanctioned plan. Now the company obtained sanctioned plan from the authority Bangalore International Airport Area Planning Authority, and clearly admitted that within 9 O.S.9232/2015 the period of 180 days from the date of execution of assignment deed in Ex.P.4 and P.5 within 180 days the company has not obtained sanctioned plan from BIAAPA. Further admitted that the written statement bears no seal of defendant No.1 company and also clearly admitted that in the written statement they have admitted to refund entire amount. It is also fundamental principal under the jurisprudence and company law that company is a legal person clothed with certain rights and liabilities, company may sued and be sued in its corporate name and seal. But in this case defendant intentionally has not affixed the seal of the company which is also error apparent on the face of the record.
9. In this case viewing from any angle there is no justification on the part of the defendant for praying for exempting interest accrued on amount paid to the company and for costs because it is also well settled principle that no body shall be enriched by others efforts or property. Under these circumstances, the contention of defendant to decree the suit only for payment of 10 O.S.9232/2015 Rs.7,20,000/- exempting interest and costs of this suit not tenable under law.
10. Further in this case defendant was also ready to willing to perform their part of contract even as on the date of filing of the suit as per assignment dated:
19.11.2012. Under these circumstances, this court hold Issue No.1 in the Affirmative and Issue No.2 in the Negative.
11. Issue No.3: In view of my findings on Issue No.1 and 2 , I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed. The defendants herein are hereby directed to pay Rs.10,40,674/- along with interest form 19.11.2012 to 1.11.2015 at the rate of 15% p.a. and further interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization and with costs.11 O.S.9232/2015
Defendant herein is directed to pay the decreetal amount within the period of six months from the date of the decree.
If defendant failed to comply decree passed by this court plaintiff is at liberty to take further legal action against the defendant for recovery of the same.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Typed to my online dictation by the Judgment Writer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 11th day of July 2017).
(A.VIJAYAN.) LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:
P.W.1: Srinivas Rao
2. List of documents marked for Plaintiff:
Ex.P1 to 3 : Receipts
Ex.P4 & 5 : Assignment agreements
Ex.P6 & 7 : Letter
Ex.P8 : Copy of legal notice
Ex.P9 & 10 : postal receipts
Ex.P11 & 12 : Postal acknowledgments
3. List of witnesses examined for Defendants:
DW.1 : Sagar H.G. 12 O.S.9232/2015
4. List of documents marked for defendants:
Ex.D1 : Authorisation letter
(A.VIJAYAN.)
LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge 13 O.S.9232/2015 11.7.2017 For Judgment Pronounced vide separate order with following operative portion:
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed. The defendants herein are hereby directed to pay Rs.10,40,674/- along with interest form 19.11.2012 to 1.11.2015 at the rate of 15% p.a. and further interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization and with costs. Defendant herein is directed to pay the decreetal amount within the period of six months from the date of the decree.
If defendant failed to comply decree passed by this court plaintiff is at liberty to take further legal action against the defendant for recovery of the same.
Draw decree accordingly.
LXVI Addl. CC & SJ,B'lore