declaration under sec.34 of Specific Relief Act
M.A.T.Ganesan
(Querist) 24 July 2008
This query is : Resolved
X obtained an allotment of aplot from aco- op. society in1990 with a condition that the allotee should start construction within 2 years of allotment & complete it within 5 years. X did not do construction.soceity sent ashow cause notice in1997, which was replied by X with a builddind plan .the society countersigned & X obtained the plan sanctioned by municipality in2004. in2007 society allotted the plot to a third party. hence X filed a suit for declaration that allottment in his favour is still subsisting. pl. inform me in this case with reported cases
Guest
(Expert) 25 July 2008
Supreme Court of India CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1855-1856 of 2004
PETITIONER:
Shipping Corporation of India Ltd.
RESPONDENT:
Machado Brothers & Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/03/2004
BENCH:
N.Santosh Hegde & B.P.Singh.
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SLP)Nos.10033-10034 of 2003)
SANTOSH HEGDE,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
These two civil appeals arise out of a common order made
by the High Court of Madras at Chennai in Civil Revision Petition
(P.D.) No.309 of 2003 and CMP No.2222 of 2003. By the above
order, the High Court upheld an order made by the City Civil
Court at Chennai in I.A.No.20651 of 2001 in O.S.No.4212 of
1995. The said I.A. filed under Section 151 C.P.C. by the appellant
herein was for the dismissal of the suit O.S.No.4212/95 which was
filed by the respondent herein on the ground that the said suit had
become infructuous.
The facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as
follows:
The appellant herein had appointed the respondent as the
Steamship Agent of the appellant for the purpose of handling
tankers, bulk carriers, and tramp vessels, calling at the port of
Tuticorin. It is the contention of the appellant that the said
agreement provides for termination of the contract. On being
dissatisfied with the conduct of the respondent, invoking the said
clause of termination and for the reasons mentioned therein, by a
notice dated 23.2.1995, the appellant terminated the said contract
of agency. The respondent herein challenged the said termination
by way of a suit in O.S.No.4212/95 in the City Civil Court at
Madras (the trial court). In the said suit the respondent inter alia
prayed for the following reliefs:
The plaintiff, therefore, prays for a
judgment and decree against the defendants 1 to 3
for a declaration to declare that the order of the
termination issued by the 1st defendants on
23.2.1995 through telex terminating the Plaintiffs
agency, as per the agreement dated 3.6.1988, is
illegal, void and unenforceable.
During the pendency of the said suit, the respondent also
prayed for an interim injunction restraining the appellant from
interfering with the agency of the respondent. The trial court by an
order dated 24.11.1995 was pleased to grant interim relief sought
for by the respondent which became final consequent upon the
appellants challenge to the same made before the High Court
being rejected.
During such continuation of the agency, the appellant
allegedly noticed certain financial irregularities and was
contemplating to take fresh steps to terminate the agency once
again. Anticipating such subsequent termination, the respondent
herein filed another suit O.S.No.4849/2001 before the trial court
praying for production of accounts of the appellant and
appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to scrutinize the
accounts of the parties.
During the pendency of the above noted two suits filed by
the respondent, the appellant by a notice dated 23.8.2001 again
terminated the agency of the respondent on the ground of
respondent charging excess amount and on the charge of tampering
with invoices and bills. The said notice stated that the appellant
was terminating the agency under Clause 31 of the Agency
Agreement and on expiry of 90 days from the date of the receipt of
the said notice the agency will stand terminated.
On receipt of the above notice, the respondent filed another
suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.5100/2001. In the said
suit, respondent sought for an interlocutory injunction but the trial
court in the said application granted an order of status quo. The
appellant attempted to get the said order of status quo vacated and
having failed, it challenged the same in a revision petition before
the High Court along with a prayer for dismissal of all the three
suits pending before the trial court. The said revisi
M.A.T.Ganesan
(Querist) 26 July 2008
u have stated the service matters, but dispute is with regard to land
R.Manivasagan
(Expert) 27 July 2008
The limitation agaisnt the allottee expires even in the year 1994 itself, so the show cause notice inthe year 1997 will never bind the allottee. further the allotte is entitled to protect his possession thorugh court of law. the society sholud initiate legal proceedings agasint the allotte to surrender the possession, since the possession handed over even as on the date of allottment. The allotte can sue the society for declaration of his title
