Interim Order 3

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 17.08.2024 Court Room No.31 - Commercial Court, Mumbai
Coram : Shri V. S. Hingne, Additional District Judge,
Sr. No.37
Commercial
Suit No.
100032/2019
CHS 1421/23
Mr. Pravin Juneja Vs M/s. Peninsula Crossroads Pvt. Ltd.
Intern Maithili Gala present for plaintiff.
Adv. Shivani Prasad present for defendant no.1.
Suit is kept back for Order.
Later on at 13.27 Hrs.
Adv. Lakshyaved Odhekar present for defendant no.2.
Later on at 14.55 Hrs.
Adv. Vinisha Bhavnani present for defendant no.1.
Through Chamber Summons No. 101421 / 2023, plaintiff
is seeking permission to plead additional facts in the
Plaint and to seek additional relief of recovery.
Perused Record.
Heard Adv. Reshant Shah for plaintiff.
Heard Adv. Harsha Shah for defendant No. 1.
Despite directions from 30.01.2024, defendant No. 2 and
No. 3 failed to take steps regarding the Chamber
Summons. Today, D2 and D3 are called, but absent.
There is no explanation or adjournment from these
defendants for not taking steps regarding Chamber
Summons. Sufficient time and opportunities were
available to these defendants to comply the Court
direction. However, they failed. Hence, pending Chamber
Summons is being disposed off, on the face of record.
Plaintiffs Pravin Juneja and Bela Juneja, residents of
Delhi, filed present Commercial Suit No. 100032 / 2019,
against defendant No. 1 Peninsula Crossroads which is
builder, defendant No. 2 CBRE South Asia which is
Service Provider and defendant No. 3 MCGM, which is a
statutory organization.
-- 1 of 4 --
According to plaintiff, vide Agreement Dt. 10.10.2005, it
had purchased Unit No. 102 from D1. However, D1 failed
to provide various amenities and services as agreed in the
Agreement.
Thereafter, D1 appointed D2 as service provider.
However, said D2 is also not providing proper services.
Plaintiff has paid Property Taxes with D1. However, later
on, plaintiff got the knowledge that, it was D1, who was
required to pay the Property Tax.
As both defendants jumped the Agreement and caused
inconvenience, hence plaintiff preferred present Suit on
03.05.2019 for following reliefs :
1. Defendants be directed to provide the agreed
services / amenities.
2. Defendants be directed to reduce the
maintenance charges.
3. Defendants be directed to refund the excess
money with interest @ 21 %.
4. Defendants be directed to adjust the excess
maintenance amount towards future
maintenance charges.
5. D1 and D2 be directed to deposit the Property
Taxes with D3.
6. D1 and D2 be directed to pay the damages.
Perusal shows that, on 03.05.2019, plaintiff sought
exemption from Pre-Institution Mediation. Same was
granted to the plaintiff.
On 04.10.2019, D1, on 26.11.2019 and on 02.08.2019,
D1, D2 and D3 filed their respective Written Statements.
Through Chamber Summons No. 1421 / 2023, plaintiffs
contended that, they had communication with MMRDA
on 28.12.2019, 11.02.2020 and 02.03.2020. During said
communication, plaintiffs got knowledge that, MMRDA
had issued some directions regarding the property.
Further, MMRDA had also inspected the premises on
10.03.2022. Plaintiffs also got the knowledge that there is
-- 2 of 4 --
sublease Dt. 03.01.2001. According to plaintiff, he got all
these details only on 17.03.2022 and hence it is necessary
for plaintiff to bring those facts on record. Further,
plaintiffs are also required to recover Rs. 10,32,132/-,
which has been unlawfully collected by D1 from plaintiff.
Hence, plaintiff is seeking amendment regarding
additional pleading and additional relief of recovery.
D1 filed reply Exh. 10, Dt. 14.03.2024 and opposed the
Chamber Summons.
Plaintiff has put forth very complex set of facts, wherein,
not only plaintiff, D1 and D2 appears to be involved, but
also statutory organization like MCGM, MMRDA are
also related. The rights and duties of the parties
pertaining to the Agreement will require adjudication in
backdrop of the directions issued by these statutory
organizations. Therefore, whatever additional pleading,
the plaintiff is seeking, is just for fair adjudication of the
dispute.
If any party, for technical reasons, is deprived of raising
its case, then it may result in improper adjudication. That
may lead to complexity in the dispute and may also lead
to multiplicity of litigation. If that happens, then it drags
the parties into further litigation, causing serious
prejudices to them. Hence, it is always in the interest of
justice that, both contesting parties are provided sufficient
opportunities to raise their contentions and to prove their
case.
If plaintiff is permitted to carry out amendment, then in
that circumstances, the defendants will be at liberty to
carry out consequential amendments. That will help
proper adjudication of the dispute, which will be in the
interest of parties themselves. Therefore, the Chamber
Summons deserves to be allowed and is ordered
accordingly.
ORDER
-- 3 of 4 --
1. Chamber Summons No. 101421 / 2023, is
allowed.
2. By next date, plaintiff shall carry out necessary
amendment, shall file copy of amended Plaint
and shall supply copy of amended Plaint to
defendants.
3. If plaintiff fails to comply the Order by next
date, then the Suit shall proceed further.
4. Proceeding of Chamber Summons No. 101421 /
2023 is closed.
5. Order pronounced in open Court.
6. Defendants be informed about their right to
challenge this Order and period of limitation for
the same.
7. Record of Chamber Summons shall be part of
Commercial Suit No. 100032 / 2019.
Suit adjourned to 31.08.2024 for compliance.
Judge
-- 4 of 4 --