SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(Bom) 318

D.R.DHANUKA
Chandrakant Shankar Pradhan – Appellant
Versus
Verma Investment Corporation & others – Respondent


JUDGMENT - D.R. DIIANUKA, J.:---This notice of motion is a glaring example of sad plight and distress of an erstwhile tenant and occupant who allowed his tenement to be demolished relying on the promise of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 - the Builders/Developers - to provide him with accommodation in new building on ownership basis. Several such erstwhile tenants are the victims of the wrong committed by defendants Nos. 1 to 4. On a careful scrutiny of the defence plea, have found that each of the defence plea is false and frivolous and the entire conduct of the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 is blameworthy.

2. The plaintiff has filed this suit against defendants Nos. 1 to 4 for specific performance of agreement dated 30th April, 1979, compensation in sum of Rs. 6 lacs, compensation for abnormal delay caused by defendants Nos. 1 to 4 in completing construction of the buildings and various other reliefs. The plaintiffs has impleaded defendants Nos. 5 to 7 as proper parties to the suit. The plaintiff has taken out Notice of Motion for appointment of Receiver of the property and for various other reliefs including such appropriate reliefs as deemed fit. In the affidavit in support of the Notice of Mo








































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top