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

2012 Supreme(Bom) 1279

MOHIT S.SHAH, N.M.JAMDAR
Rajesh Laxmichand Udeshi @ Bhatia – Appellant
Versus
Pravin Hiralal Shah – Respondent


Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:Sanjay Jain, Ramesh Jain, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Prateik Parija i/b M/s. Ashwin Ankhad & Associates, Advocates.

Judgment :

Oral Judgment: (Mohit S. Shah, CJ.)

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20 October 2011 of the learned single Judge of this Court in summons for judgment in the summary suit filed by the respondent herein for an amount of Rs.67,10,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the principal sum of Rs.61,00,000/-. The learned single Judge has, by the impugned judgment and order, made this summons for judgment absolute and decreed the suit in the sum of Rs.61,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 29 April 2009 till payment and/or realization with costs.

2. The parties had entered into Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 12 May 2009, under which the appellant/defendant was to sell to the plaintiff a flat for consideration of Rs.8.46 crores. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant represented that he along with his father and brother had tenancy right in the flat and that the defendant had an authority to enter into MOU.

3. The plaintiff paid aggregate amount of Rs.61,00,000/- by two cheques-cheque dated 6 April 2009 for Rs.11,00,000/- as earnest money and cheque dated 29 April 2009 for Rs.50,00,000/- a































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

V. K. Enterprises VS Shiva Steels - 2010 6 Supreme 180: The treatment of this case is unclear. The provided text ("If the affidavit filed by the defendant plausibly discloses a triable issue, leave should be granted.") contains no keywords or phrases indicating judicial treatment such as "followed," "distinguished," "criticized," "questioned," "overruled," "reversed," or "abrogated." It appears to be a standalone legal principle without any explicit reference to how subsequent decisions have treated it.

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