TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 1458
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2021 in C. S. No. 46 of 2018 - -<br>Indian Laws<br>Hon'ble Mr. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy ORDER The second and third defendants in the suit have filed this application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to be deleted from the array of parties in the suit. 2. The applicants contend that the dispute arises out of a construction agreement between the plaintiff and the first defendant, and that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd, in particular, paragraphs 3 and 4 thereof to substantiate the contention that the joinder of persons who are neither necessary nor proper parties cannot be justified by falling back on dominus litus. The applicants point out that Crl.O.P.No.18099 of 2016, which was filed by the applicants herein against criminal proceedings instituted by the plaintiff, was allowed. The Special Leave Petition f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to part with money and enter into the construction agreement in the name of the first defendant. The plaintiff also points out that these defendants undertook to repay the money and, are, therefore, personally liable for the suit claim. The plaintiff relies upon cheques issued by the second defendant on 31.07.2015, 31.08.2015 and 30.09.2015. 5. By way of a brief rejoinder, the applicants point ou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder the construction agreement, and that the second defendant issued cheques in his personal name towards discharge of liability. The relevant cheques are on record and indicate prima facie that the cheques were issued in the name of the second defendant. Even as regards the third defendant, there are allegations that such third defendant made misrepresentations and that such misrepresentations w....