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

2025 Supreme(Bom) 900

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ALOK ARADHE, C.J., M.S. KARNIK, J.
Kher Nagar Sai Prasad - Appellant
Versus
Pittie Antariksh GRL Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
Commercial Appeal (L) No. 9061 of 2024, Commercial Suit (L) No. 27651 of 2023, Interim Application (L) No. 27970 of 2023, Interim Application (L) No. 9359 of 2024
Decided On : 25-04-2025

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Nishant
Shashidharan, Mr. Shrey Sancheti, Ms. Paluck Bengali and
Mr. Shreyas Moharir i/b Ashraf Diamondwala for the Appellant.
Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Karl Tamboly,
Ms. Pooja Kane, Ms. Shradha Achliya, Mr. Bharat Jain,
Mr. Anant Ratnaparkhi and Mr. Kavish Arora i/b IC Legal for
the Respondent .

A formal development agreement is essential for a binding contract; ongoing negotiations do not constitute a concluded contract.

Headnote:

(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 13 - Interim injunction - The learned Single Judge granted an interim injunction against the society restraining it from appointing another developer and acting on a termination letter dated 24th May 2023 - The developer claimed a binding contract based on letters dated 30th August 2021 and 23rd October 2021, while the society contended that negotiations were ongoing and no concluded contract existed. (Paras 1-2, 10-12, 19-20)

(B) Contract Law - Concluded contract - The court emphasized that a formal development agreement is essential for a binding contract, and the absence of such an agreement indicates ongoing negotiations rather than a concluded contract. (Paras 14, 24-28)

Facts of the case:
The developer sought an injunction against the society, claiming a binding contract for redevelopment based on prior communications, while the society argued that negotiations were still ongoing and no formal agreement had been executed. (Paras 2-3)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the learned Single Judge erred in concluding that a binding contract existed without a formal development agreement, emphasizing that essential terms were still under negotiation. (Paras 19-20, 24-28)

Issues: The main issues were whether a concluded contract existed between the parties and the necessity of a signed development agreement for enforceability. (Paras 14, 19)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of a signed development agreement indicates that essential terms were still under negotiation, and thus, no binding contract existed. (Paras 24-28)

Result: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed. (Paras 31-32)

JUDGMENT :

M.S. KARNIK, J.

1. The challenge in this Commercial Appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act is to the judgment and order dated 1st February 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the Interim Application seeking reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) during the pendency of the Commercial Suit filed by the Respondent/original plaintiff – Pittie Antariksh GRL Pvt. Ltd. (‘the developer’ for short). By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge made the Interim Application absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a)and (b) which read thus:-

“(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an interim and temporary injunction against the defendant restraining the defendant, its members, representatives, nominees, and assigns/or from entering into any agreement, appointing another developer for redevelopment of the defendant's building and/or creating any third party rights in respect of the Suit property.

(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay effect and implementation of the defendant's letter dated 24th May 2023 and restrain the defendant and its members from acting in furtherance of the said letter dated 24th May 2023.”

2. In the Suit, the Respondent prayed for a declaration that there is a valid, binding and subsisting contract between the Respondent/original plaintiff - developer and the Appellant/original defendant – Kher Nagar Sai Prasad Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (‘society’ for short) as recorded in letters dated 30th August 2021 and 23rd October 2021. The relief for a decree of specific performance of agreement as recorded in letters dated 30th August 2021 and 23rd October 2021 was prayed for. A relief for declaration that letter dated 24th May 2023 is illegal, contrary to law and non-est is prayed for. Then a relief for a mandatory injunction against the society and its representatives from creating third party rights in the suit property; in the alternative for compensation. The Interim Application was filed for reliefs during the pendency of the Suit.

3. Facts relevant to the decision in the Appeal are thus :-

Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority ('MHADA' for short) was the owner of a land admeasuring 1066.94 sq.mtrs. situated at Survey No.341(pt) and CS No.604 (pt) at Khernagar, Bandra (East) ('suit land' for short) alongwith a building (G + 2 storey) ('suit building' for short), the property referred to as ‘suit property’ for short hereafter. MHADA executed a Lease Deed in favour of the society for suit land on 4th January 2016. On this date i.e. 4th January 2016 MHADA also executed Sale Deed in favour of the society for the suit building. The society floated a tender on 29th March 2021 for redevelopment of the suit property and bids were invited from the interested developers. The bid submitted by the said developer was accepted. A Special General Body Meeting of the society was held on 31st July 2021 where the Respondent/plaintiff was provisionally selected as the developer by the society. An offer letter was issued by the developer to the society on 4th August 2021. A comfort letter dated 7th August 2021 was issued to the developer by the society inter alia stating that the final selection and appointment of the plaintiff as a developer shall be done after complying with the procedure laid down under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ('Societies Act' for short).

4. A revised offer letter dated 30th August 2021 was issued by the developer to the society. By the said offer letter, the developer inter alia offered (i) additional area of 510 sq.ft. MOFA carpet area to each existing member free of cost and (ii) Rs.20,00,000/- as lumpsum hardship allowance to each member. An email was addressed by the developer to the society inter alia revising its offer on 20th October 2021. By the said revised offer letter, the developer inter alia offered (i) additional area of 528 sq.ft. MOFA carpet area to each existing member free of cost and (ii

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 Back to top