ORDER NO. 14 DT. 18.01.2013
S. Coari, LD. Member
The record is placed today for passing necessary orders in respect of Misc. Applications Nos. MA-227/2012, MA-228/2012, MA-229/2012, MA-230/2012, MA-231/2012, MA-232/2012, MA-233/2012, MA-234/2012 and MA-235/2012.MA-227/2012
In the Misc. Application No.227/2012, the Misc. Applicant/ Respondent No.4 has contended that respondent has been un-necessarily impleaded in the present proceeding. The Respondent No. 4, being a Non Executive Director of the Company viz. M/s DLF Ltd., has got no role to play in the present transactions entered into between the two parties. In the absence of any specific claim against the present Respondent by the complainant, it is useless to include the Respondent in the present case.
The Respondent No.4 being a Non Executive Director of the Company, it is useless to implead the present Respondent and hence the Misc. Application with the prayer for deleting the name of Respondent No. 4 from the present complaint case and/or the petition of complaint filed against the present respondent is to be rejected/dismissed.
At the time of hearing, it has been submitted on behalf of Misc. Applicant that the complainant has un-necessarily included in the Respondent No. 4 in the present proceeding and on the reasons set forth above, Misc. Application should be allowed.
We have duly considered the submissions, so put forward on behalf of the Misc. Applicant, and on perusal of materials and records, we find that Respondent No.4 has been impleaded in the present case in the capacity of one of the Directors of M/s DLF Company.
Now keeping in mind that the present Misc. Application has been filed at the very initial stage of the present proceeding, we do not think that it would be just and proper to allow the Misc. Application as the points and facts raised in the present application can only be adjudicated during course of hearing of the present case. Having considered the present Misc. Application in light of the above discussions, we find no merit in the present Misc. Application, which has been filed at a very premature stage and should be dismissed, and in the result, the Misc. Application No. MA-227/2012 is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, it is ordered that the Misc. Application being MA-227/2012 stands dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs. The Misc. Application is thus finally disposed off.
MA-228/2012
In the Misc. Application 228/2012, it is submitted on behalf of Respondent No.5 that he being a Non Executive Director of Respondent No.1, is not at all a necessary or proper party in the present proceeding and the Respondent No.5 being not personally liable in the matter of any payment and/or handing over of any flat in question, there is absolutely no breach of contract between the complainant and Respondent No. 5. Under these circumstances the name of Respondent No. 5 may kindly be deleted from the present proceeding and/or the present complaint case filed against Respondent No.5 be rejected/dismissed.
We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of Respondent No.5 and having considered the case and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the materials and records, we find that the present Misc. Application has been filed at a very premature stage and whether the impleadment of Respondent No.5 is necessary or not can only be ascertained through trial and as such we do not think that the present Misc. Application has got any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, it is ordered that the Misc. Application being MA 228/2012 stands dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs. The Misc. Application is thus finally disposed off.
MA-229/2012
In the Misc. Application 229/2012, it is submitted on behalf of Respondent No.6 that he being a Non Executive Director of Respondent No.1, is not at all a necessary or proper party in the present proceeding and the Respondent No.6 being not personally liable in the matter of any payment and/or handing over of any flat in question, there is absolutely no breach of contract between the complainant and Respondent No. 6. Under these circumstances, the name of Respondent No. 6 may kindly be deleted from the present proceeding and/or the present complaint case filed against Respondent No.6 be rejected/dismissed.
We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of Respondent No.6 and having considered the case and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the materials and records, we find that the present Misc. Application has been filed at a very premature stage and whether the impleadment of Respondent No.6 is necessary or not can only be ascertained through trial and as such, we do not think that the present Misc. Application has got any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed
Hence, it is ordered that the Misc. Application being MA 229/2012 stands dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs. The Misc. Application is thus finally disposed off.
MA-230/2012
In the Misc. Application 230/2012, it is submitted on behalf of Respondent No.8 that he being a Non Executive Director of Respondent No.1, is not at all a necessary or proper party in the present proceeding and the Respondent No.8 being not personally liable in the matter of any payment and/or handing over of any flat in question, there is absolutely no breach of contract between the complainant and Respondent No.8. Under these circumstances the name of Respondent No. 8 may kindly be deleted from the present proceeding and/or the present complaint case filed against Respondent No.8 be rejected/dismissed.
We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of Respondent No.8 and having considered the case and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the materials and records, we find that the present Misc. Application has been filed at a very premature stage and whether the impleadment of Respondent No.8 is necessary or not can only be ascertained through trial and as such, we do not think that the present Misc. Application has got any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, it is ordered that the Misc. Application being MA 230/2012 stands dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs. The Misc. Application is thus finally disposed off.
MA-231/2012
In the Misc. Application 231/2012, it is submitted on behalf of Respondent No.9 that he being a Non Executive Director of Respondent No.1, is not at all a necessary or proper party in the present proceeding and the Respondent No.9 being not personally liable in the matter of any payment and/or handing over of any flat in question, there is absolutely no breach of contract between the complainant and Respondent No.9. Under these circumstances, the name of Respondent No. 9 may kindly be deleted from the present proceeding and/or the present complaint case filed against Respondent No.9 be rejected/dismissed.
We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of Respondent No.9 and having considered the case and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the materials and records, we find that the present Misc. Application has been filed at a very premature stage and whether the impleadment of Respondent No.9 is necessary or not can only be ascertained through trial and as such, we do not think that the present Misc. Application has got any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, it is ordered that the Misc. Application being MA 231/2012 stands dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs. The Misc. Application is thus finally disposed off.
MA-232/2012
In the Misc. Application 232/2012, it is submitted on behalf of Respondent No.10 that he being not a Director of Respondent No.1, is not at all a necessary or proper party in the present proceeding and the Respondent No.10 being not personally liable in the matter of any payment and/or handing over of any flat in question, there is absolutely no breach of contract between the complainant and Respondent No.10. Under these circumstances, the name of Respondent No. 10 may kindly be deleted from the present proceeding and/or the present complaint case filed against Respondent No.9 be rejected/dismissed.
We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of Respondent No.10 and having considered the case and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the materials and records, we find that the present Misc. Application has been filed at a very premature stage whether the impleadment of Respondent No.10 is necessary or not can only be ascertained through trial and as such, we do not think that the present Misc. Application has got any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, it is ordered that the Misc. Application being Misc. Application 232/2012 stands dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs. The Misc. Application is thus finally disposed off.
MA-233/2012
In the Misc. Application 233/2012, it is submitted on behalf of Respondent No.11 that he being a Company Secretary of Respondent No.1, is not at all a necessary or proper party in the present proceeding and the Respondent No.11 being not personally liable in the matter of any payment and/or handing over of any flat in question, there is absolutely no breach of contract between the complainant and Respondent No.11. Under these circumstances the name of Respondent No. 10 may kindly be deleted from the present proceeding and/or the present complaint case filed against Respondent No.11 be rejected/dismissed.
We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of Respondent No.11 and having considered the case and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the materials and records, we find that the present Misc. Application has been filed at a very premature stage and whether the impleadment of Respondent No.11 is necessary or not can only be ascertained through trial and as such, we do not think that the present Misc. Application has got any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, it is ordered that the Misc. Application being MA 233/2012 stands dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs. The Misc. Application is thus finally disposed off.
MA-234/2012
In the Misc. Application 234/2012, it is submitted on behalf of Respondent No.13 that he being not a CEO is not at all a necessary or proper party in the present proceeding and the Respondent No.13 being not personally liable as there is not post of CEO in the Respondent No. 1 Company, there is absolutely no breach of contract between the complainant and Respondent No.13. Under these circumstances the name of Respondent No. 13 may kindly be deleted from the present proceeding and/or the present complaint case filed against Respondent No.13 be rejected/dismissed.
We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of Respondent No.13 and having considered the case and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the materials and records, we find that the present Misc. Application has been filed at a very premature stage and whether the impleadment of Respondent No.13 is necessary or not can only be ascertained through trial and as such, we do not think that the present Misc. Application has got any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, it is ordered that the Misc. Application being MA 234/2012 stands dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs. The Misc. Application is thus finally disposed off.MA-235/2012
In the Misc.Application 235/2012, it is submitted on behalf of Respondent No.15 that he being an Assistant Manager of Respondent No.1, is not at all a necessary or proper party in the present proceeding and the Respondent No.15 being not personally liable in the matter of any payment and/or handing over of any flat in question, there is absolutely no breach of contract between the complainant and Respondent No.15. Under these circumstances the name of Respondent No. 15 may kindly be deleted from the present proceeding and/or the present complaint case filed against Respondent No.15 be rejected/dismissed.
We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of Respondent No.15 and having considered the case and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the materials and records, we find that the present Misc. Application has been filed at a very premature stage and whether the impleadment of Respondent No.15 is necessary or not can only be ascertained through regular trial and as such, we do not think that the present Misc. Application has got any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, it is ordered that the Misc. Application being MA 235/2012 stands dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs. The Misc. Application is thus finally disposed off.Fix 21.03.2013 for hearing of the application U/S 13(3B) of the Consumer Protection Act. Objection, if any, in the meantime. Also hearing of the MA Application being No. 261/2012 under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Objection, if any, in the meantime.