The appellant herein sent a letter dated 10.09.2007 through his advocate to respondent Nos.
The mother of the appellant passed away in 1991 and his father also passed away in 2002.
1 2 for seeking details of the companysideration of Rs.1,85,00,000/ and also for inspection of various documents referred to and relied on by them in the plaint as well as in the Notice of Motion.
40 of 2010 in Chamber Summons No.
40 of 2009 in Chamber Summons No.
1233 of 2008 in Suit No.
Heard Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior companynsel for the appellant, Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, learned companynsel for respondent Nos.
After hearing the parties, the High Court, by order dated 26.11.2007, vacated the ex parte ad interim order.
According to the appellant, in the year 2002, for setting up a new business, he was in need of substantial finance and for that purpose, he approached respondent No.1 Company through its Director Mr. Rajendra Kumar Aggarwal, who is his companybrother.
On 20.08.2008, respondent No.1 Company took out Chamber Summons No.
The Society granted leasehold rights in respect of the said plot by indenture of lease dated 22.02.1976.
1233 of 2008 filed by respondent No.1 herein for amendment in the plaint.
It is also projected that the proposed amendment is limited to the extent of companytending that defendant Nos.
2374 of 2007.
3,4 5 apart from the fact that he wants to explain how money was paid.
Respondent No.2 agreed to finance the proposed projects on the companydition that some documents are required to be executed as security.
After the death of the parents, the appellant holds 50 share in the suit property and his brother, respondent No.4 herein, also holds remaining 50 share in the suit property.
1233 of 2008 in Suit No.
On 06.09.2007, respondent No.1 Company took out Notice of Motion No.3241 of 2007 in which an ex parte ad interim order was passed in their favour.
1233 of 2008 in Suit No.
However, by order dated 21.11.2009, learned Single Judge of the High Court partly allowed the Chamber Summons.
Vipin Kumar Agarwal, respondent No.4 is the brother of the appellant.
1233 of 2008 for amendment of plaint for impleadment of two parties as plaintiff Nos.
After inspecting the documents, the appellant filed a reply and prayed for vacating of the ex parte ad interim order dated 06.09.2007.
2374 of 2007 with a prayer to amend the plaint by impleading other parties.
The land on which the said bungalow is companystructed is a leasehold property and belongs to Hatkesh Co operative Housing Society Limited hereinafter referred to as the Society .
Brief facts The property Bungalow in question was companystructed by the late Ganpatrai Agarwal, father of the appellant herein.
2374 of 2007 whereby the High Court disposed of the appeal filed by the appellant herein by partly allowing Chamber Summons No.
The appellant herein opposed the same.
By the impugned order dated 08.06.2010, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal.
1 and 2 and the proposed defendants treated the payment made by the plaintiffs to defendant Nos.3 to 5 as payment having been made to defendant No.1.
1 3 and Mr. Vinay Navare, learned companynsel for respondent No.4.
Against the order dated 21.11.2009, the appellant herein preferred an appeal before the Division Bench being Appeal No.
This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 08.06.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No.
Aggrieved by the said order of the High Court, the appellant has filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
2 3 and three parties as defendant Nos.
3 5 and the receipt of the amount was reflected in the accounts of proposed defendant Nos.
On 16.08.2007, respondent No.1 Company filed a suit for specific performance being Suit No.2374 of 2007 before the High Court of Bombay alleging that the appellant herein had agreed to sell his 50 share in the suit property to the Company for a companysideration of Rs.1,85,00,000/ and also alleged that the appellant ensured that respondent No.4 the brother of the appellant would sell his 50 undivided share in the property to the Company for Rs.3,00,00,000/ and represented him as an agent of respondent No.4.
Sathasivam,J. Leave granted.
After filing a suit for specific performance in the year 2007, the plaintiff filed Chamber Summons No.
