( 1 ) THE facts of the case are, the appellant is said to be a reputed developer and builder. It is claimed that the appellant along with its group companies have specialized in the development of major information Technology Parks. The respondent, a private limited company, has obtained on lease plots bearing Nos. 13, 14 and 15, EPIP, I phase, Whitefield, Bangalore measuring about 33,149 sq. m. (about 8 acres 19 guntas ). The land was allotted to the respondent on 10-6-2002 by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board ('kiadb', for short ). Physical possession has been delivered on 30-5-2003 and a lease agreement has been executed in favour of the respondent by the KIADB as on 17-11-2003.

( 2 ) THE respondent had made a. proposal to the appellant as on 6-8-2003 to sub-lease the above land by the execution of an agreement of lease, within 15 days from KIADB executing the lease-cum-sale agreement in its favour. This proposal was accepted by the appellant.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the appellant that pursuant to the lease deed dated 17-11-2003 executed by KIADB in favour of the respondent, the appellant who had got the subject land surveyed and building plans prepared through its Architects, had held meetings with the respondent, to finalize terms of the sub-lease, on 17-2-2004 and 18-2-2004. The appellant had got issued a public notice through several daily newspapers dated 18-3-2004 declaring the proposed intention of taking the land on sub-lease from the respondent and inviting objections if any from any other party. Also by a letter dated 18-3-2004 the appellant called upon the respondent to complete the transaction as contemplated under the agreement dated 6-8-2003. In response the respondent had, by a letter dated 22-3-2004, informed the appellant that the agreement dated 6-8- 2003 was no longer subsisting and that it was null and void. The appellant has filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 6-8-2003, as on 16-7-2004. An application for temporary injunction seeking to restrain the respondent from alienating or altering the nature of the suit land having been rejected, the present appeal is filed.

( 4 ) THE appeal having been admitted the prayer for interim injunction was also granted. However, the interim injunction was modified at the instance of the respondent and with the consent of both Counsels for the parties, the matter was heard for final disposal.

( 5 ) THE findings of the Trial Court may be summarized as follows.- that the appellant having sought more than one relief in the application for temporary injunction - the application is liable to be dismissed as it is contrary to the Civil Rules of Practice. The memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 6-8-2003 as between the parties is not enforceable under law as the same "does not contain the essential bargain or important and material terms and to that extent the said MOU is not a concluded contract between the parties" (sic ). . . and "the same cannot be specifically enforced". The MOU was valid, enforceable and binding only for a period of 15 days from the date on which the KIADB executed the lease agreement in favour of the respondent. Hence it was valid only upto 11-12-2003. And it was not in existence as on the date of suit, namely, as on 16-7-2004. As the permission of KIADB was necessary to sub-lease the suit property - the respondent cannot be compelled to seek such permission. Even if it is presumed that the agreement is an enforceable one - the appellant can be adequately compensated in terms of money the appellant is guilty of suppression of facts, such as the issuance of a public notice by the respondent dated 22-3-2004 by way of reply to the public notice dated 18-3-2004 and the fact that the defendant has started construction over the suit schedule property. That the respondent has spent a huge sum of money in respect of the construction on the suit property. That the appellant has "slept over its rights". In not approaching

Click Here to Read the rest of this document