Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (7) TMI 1307

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... anted. There was neither any relinquishment at any stage, nor omission to claim relief. Both the causes of action being separate, the second suit was clearly maintainable. The appellant, who is facing recovery of more than Rs.8 crores, is unnecessarily trying to delay the progress in the suit, which is pending since 2016. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity - Appeal dismissed. - VIKRAM NATH And PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE , JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. K. K. Mani, AOR Ms. T.archana, Adv. Ms. Rajeev Gupta, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Aditya Kumar Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Pandey, Adv. Mr. Gurmehar Vaan Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, AOR JUDGMENT VIKRAM NATH, J. 1. Delay, if any, is condoned. 2. Leave granted. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s and arrears of storage charges of Rs.2,04,68,464/-. It was further specifically mentioned that respondent-plaintiff reserves its rights to claim against the defendant-appellant for recovery of arrears and also damages due to the illegal use and occupation of the Schedule-B property. 5. After about seven months, the appellant filed a commercial suit before the Madras High Court registered as C.S. No.914 of 2015 against the respondent and also Small Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu for the relief of declaration that the respondent had given only 1,03,522 sq. ft. area of the factory shed and not 1,50,000 sq. ft. under the Leave and License agreement dated 25.11.2008. 6. On 24.11.2015, the respondent filed an application under O .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n was filed on 21st July, 2016. 8. The civil revision as also the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC were heard together by the High Court and vide judgment and order dated 24.11.2016, the High Court dismissed both the civil revision as also the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed. 9. In the meantime, the appellant vacated the warehouse and handed over the keys to the respondent on 30th September, 2016. Accordingly, the respondent on 11.04.2017 withdrew its O.S. No.101 of 2015 as possession had already been delivered to it. 10. Further, the appellant filed another Commercial Suit No.160 of 2017 before the Madras High Court claiming refund of security deposit, additional deposit, penalty paid to the Uni .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the appellant. 13. We have heard Sri Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Sri Aditya Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and have also perused the material on record. 14. The submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant by the learned Senior Counsel are summarized as under: (i) The commercial suit bearing C.S. No.323 of 2016 was clearly barred by Order II Rule 2(2) CPC. (ii) The Courts below failed to distinguish between relinquishment of claims and omissions of relief. The High Court wrongly relied upon the Full Bench Judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Shankar Lal Laxminarayan Rathi and Ors. Vs. Gangabisen Manik Lal Silchi and another AIR 1972 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... housing charges, damages for illegal use and occupation etc. and further had applied for leave before the Trial Court for filing a separate suit, which leave had been granted. There was neither any relinquishment at any stage, nor omission to claim relief. Both the causes of action being separate, the second suit was clearly maintainable. The appellant, who is facing recovery of more than Rs.8 crores, is unnecessarily trying to delay the progress in the suit, which is pending since 2016. 18. In view of the above discussion, we are of the firm view that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. The judgment in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the respondent squarely applies in the facts of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates