BOLLIENI DEVELOPERS LTD Vs. K.SAILENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application is filed by the 2nd defendant in the suit seeking leave of the Court to file additional documents as mentioned in the Judges summons and to receive the same.

(2.) The respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs have filed the present suit against the 4th respondent and the applicant herein for the relief of specific performance of the sale agreement dtd. 30/6/2008 entered into between the respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs and the 4th respondent/1st defendant with an alternative prayer for return of advance amount. The respondents 1 to 3 also sought for injunction restraining the 4th respondent and his men from encumbering the suit schedule property in any manner, in favour of the third parties.

(3.) According to the respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs, they entered into suit sale agreement dtd. 30/6/2008 with the 4th respondent/1st defendant for purchase of the suit schedule mentioned property for a value of Rs.4.00crores. It was also stated in the plaint that the respondents 1 to 3 have paid an advance amount of Rs.24,50,000.00 on the date of agreement and the balance was agreed to be paid within 12 months. It was further alleged that as per Clause 4 of the said agreement, the respondents 1 to 3 had paid a sum of Rs.1.28 crores on 4/8/2008 to the 4th respondent herein and on such payment, the possession of the suit property was delivered to the respondents 1 to 3. It was also stated by the respondents 1 to 3 that though they were ready to pay the balance sale consideration and complete the sale transaction, it was postponed by the 4th respondent under one pretext or the other. When the respondents 1 to 3 met the 4th respondent in person and enquired about the same, the 4th respondent informed the respondents 1 to 3about the pendency of certain arbitration proceedings between the 4th respondent/1st defendant and applicant herein/2nd defendant. It was further alleged that the 4th respondent requested for some time to negotiate with the applicant and settle the matter. It was further alleged in the plaint that later on, the respondents 1 to 3 acquired knowledge about the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the 4th respondent and the applicant herein dtd. 31/3/2007 agreeing to procure 250 acres of land in and around Sriperumbudur Village. It was further alleged that the applicant herein moved an application under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and this Court was pleased to appoint an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the applicant and the 4th respondent herein and the Arbitrator appointed by this Court passed an order of interim injunction as well as attachment of all the properties belonging to 4th respondent herein till the entire dues as per the award is paid in favour of the applicant. On acquiring knowledge about the said order, the respondents 1 to 3 had filed applications in A.No.3552 of 2009 and A.No.2181 of 2009 for impleading and also to vacate the interim injunction and no orders had been passed in those applications. It was further submitted by the respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs that the 4 th respondent and applicant herein had gone before the Arbitrator and had filed a joint memo for passing an award in the form of money decree against the 4th respondent and consequently, an award was passed on 19/12/2011. The respondents 1 to 3 claimed the award passed against the 4th respondent and in favour of the applicant herein was a collusive one. On these pleadings, he filed the above suit for the aforesaid relief.