Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SARANG V.KOTWAL, SANDESH D.PATIL
Kanchan G. Rohira – Appellant
Versus
Nirman Constructions Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
[Per Sarang V. Kotwal, J.]
1. Both these Appeals are decided by this common judgment because they arise out of the same judgment and decree Deshmane(PS) dated 14.1.2010 passed in Suit No.1642/1984. For convenience, the parties are referred to by their original status in the Suit. Appeal No.171/2010 is preferred by the original Plaintiff Kanchan Rohira and Appeal No.490/2010 is preferred by the original Defendant No.4 Suresh Dhoot.
2. The Suit was filed by the Plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement dated 9.1.1977 executed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 Nirmal Constructions Private Limited. Initially, the suit was filed only against the Defendant No.1. However, during pendency of the Suit, the Defendant No.1 had informed the Plaintiff that the flat which was the subject matter of the agreement was already sold by the Defendant No.1 to the Defendant No.3 M/s. Ravi Overseas Corporation by an agreement for sale dated 18.11.1981. The Defendant No.2 Girish Jalani had informed that he was an employee of the Defendant No.3 and was in occupation of the said flat in that capacity. The Defendant No.3, in turn, sold the said flat to the Defendant No.4 vide agr
Subsequent purchaser protected from specific performance if bona fide for value without notice; constructive notice requires full registration proof including indexes; discretion under S.20 denies re....
(1) Second Appeal – Jurisdiction of High Court in second appeal under Section 100 of CPC is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law.(2) Written Statement – Mere failure or....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's affirmation of the specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 05-8-1995, and the rejection of the 4th defendant's claim as a b....
The court upheld the decree for specific performance, affirming the doctrine of lis pendens and ensuring the plaintiff's readiness to perform the contract was duly recognized.
The court upheld that without explicit provisions for severability in contracts, specific performance can be enforced, provided the plaintiff demonstrates readiness and the contractual agreement is v....
The court's decision was influenced by the lack of good faith, absence of notice, and delay in filing the suit, which disentitled the plaintiff to specific performance.
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and failure to do so can result in the dismissal of the suit.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
