1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 240 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 1075 OF 2007 Jaycee Homes Limited. ...Plaintiff. V/s. Jolly Brothers Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. ...Defendants. --- Mr. Mustafa Doctor with Ms. Prabha Mehta i/b M/s Little & Co. for the Plaintiff. Mr. Doctor i/b M/s Kanga & Co., for Defendant nos.2 to 4. Mr. Ivor Peter D’cruz, for Defendant nos.6 to 8/Applicants in CHS no. 240 of 2008. Mr. P.G. Lad i/b Govt. Pleader-AGP. -- CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 26TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C.:- 1. This Chamber Summons is taken out by Defendant nos.6,7 and 8 to be deleted from the suit. 2. The suit is filed for specific performance of an agreement to sell the suit property between Defendant nos.1 to 4 and the Plaintiff on the terms and conditions mentioned in paragraph 11 of the plaint and as modified in the manner set out in paragraph 19 of the plaint. Consequential reliefs have also been sought. In the alternative, the Plaintiff has sought a decree for money against Defendant nos.1 to 8. 2 3. Defendant no.1 was managed/controlled by three groups of shareholders referred to as the Hyderabad, Bangalore and Pune groups. Defendant nos.6,7 and 8 constituted the Bangalore group. There were dispute between the shareholders of Defendant no.1 which continued even after the suit agreement and were resolved thereafter. It is averred in the plaint that Defendant no.1 is a glorified partnership and that the Plaintiff entered into transactions on the basis of the representations made by various shareholders including Defendant nos.6,7 and 8. The claim for money in the alternative is for refund of the part payment made to Defendant no.1. 4. That the shareholders of Defendant no.1 subsequently entered into consent terms in the proceedings between the respective groups before the CLB as a result whereof Defendant nos.6,7 and 8 have no interest in the suit property makes no difference to the Plaintiffs rights in the suit. For instance in view of the representation made by Defendant nos.6,7 and 8 they may well be liable for the alternative claim for money. In view of the above circumstances, it in any event cannot be stated that Defendant nos.6,7 and 8 are nor proper parties to the suit. 5. The Chamber Summons is therefore dismissed. 3