Back
2017 Supreme(Cal) 656
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, ASHA ARORA, JJ.
Jugal Kishore Sadani and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
South City Projects (Kolkata) Limited and Ors. - Respondents
FAMT No. 862 of 2015 With CAN No. 8217 of 2015.
Decided on : 04-04-2017.
Act Referred
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : O.39 R.1, O.39 R.2, S.151, S.11
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT : S.16(c)
Headnote
Temporary Injunction - Lease Agreement - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 16C - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 8 - [LEASE AGREEMENT] - [Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 16C, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 8] - The court considered the dispute arising from a lease agreement and the application for temporary injunction. The key legal provisions discussed were Section 16C of the Specific Relief Act, which outlines the criteria for obtaining a decree for specific performance of a contract, and Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which deals with the referral of disputes to arbitration. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions, as it held that the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for specific performance of the contract and that the suit was maintainable despite the arbitration clause in the agreement.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement for a shop unit in a shopping mall. Disputes arose when the plaintiffs started interior decoration work and faced issues with electricity supply. They filed a suit seeking declaration, injunction, and specific performance of the contract. The court considered the application for temporary injunction, which was initially granted but later dismissed by the trial judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for specific performance of the contract and that the suit was maintainable despite the arbitration clause in the agreement. It held that the plaintiffs had fulfilled the criteria under Section 16C of the Specific Relief Act and were ready and willing to perform their obligations under the contract.
Issues: The issues involved the entitlement to a decree for specific performance of the contract, the maintainability of the suit in light of the arbitration clause, and the payment of outstanding dues by the plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 16C of the Specific Relief Act, which required the plaintiffs to prove their readiness and willingness to perform their obligations under the contract. It also considered the maintainability of the suit in light of the arbitration clause and the payment of outstanding dues by the plaintiffs.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and an interim order of injunction was passed in favor of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendant from transferring or alienating the shop unit and maintaining the status quo of possession. The plaintiffs were directed to make certain deposits and payments, and the interim order would continue till the disposal of the suit.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, Senior Advocate and Debabeena Mukherjee, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Abharajit Mitra, Senior Advocate and Mr. Satadeep Bhattacharya, Advocate.
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.
This First Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against an order dated 13th May, 2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 5th Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 10 of 2009 at the instance of the plaintiffs/appellants.
2. By the impugned order the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction was rejected on contest without cost. Thus, the ad interim order of injunction, which was passed in favour of the plaintiffs, stood vacated.
3. The legality of the order dismissing the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction is under challenge in this appeal.
4. Let us now consider the merit of the instant appeal in the fact of the present case.
5. Admittedly, an agreement to lease was entered into between the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiffs on 13th July 2007. By the said agreement the defendant No. 1 agreed to let out a Unit No. S004 ad-measuring 820 sq. ft super built-up area on the Ground Floor of the Shopping Mall, namely South City Shopping Mall for a period of 99 years commencing from January, 2007. The terms and conditions on which the parties agreed upon for granting the said lease in favour the plaintiffs were incorporated in the said agreement as well as in the Standard Terms and Conditions (hereinafter referred to as the said 'STC'). Admittedly, the plaintiffs paid a sum of Rs. 33,84,000/-(Thirty three lakh eighty four thousand) out of the total premium of Rs. 37,60,000/-(Thirty seven lakh sixty thousand). It is also an admitted fact that pursuant to the said agreement, possession of the said unit was given to the plaintiffs by the defendant No. 1. Trouble started when the plaintiffs started carrying out interior decoration work within the said Unit. Supply of electricity was disconnected. Under such circumstances apprehending that the plaintiffs will not be permitted to carry on their business after inauguration of the said Mall and the defendant No. 1, may dispossess plaintiffs therefrom and may also transfer, alienate and/or create any third party interest in the said unit, the plaintiffs filed the said suit seeking declaration, injunction and specific performance of the contract.
6. After filing the said suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for temporary injunction for restraining the defendant from primarily dealing with the suit shop in any manner and/or from forcibly occupying the same or alienating the same or disturbing with the plaintiffs' possession and occupation therein and/or from creating disturbance in the execution of the work of fit out in the said shop room and/or from disturbing with the ingress and egress of the plaintiffs and their men and person till the disposal of the suit. Ad interim relief in similar form was also prayed for by the plaintiffs in the said application.
7. The learned Trial Judge by an order being No. 3 dated 19th January, 2009 passed ad-interim order of injunction restraining the defendant from causing any disturbance in the possession of the plaintiffs in the said shop room and also from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit shop room till 19th February, 2009. The said ad interim injunction was extended from time to time and ultimately the said order stood vacated as a consequence of dismissal of the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction by the impugned order.
8. The learned Trial Judge while dismissing the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction held that the purpose of granting injunction has been fulfilled as the interior decoration of the said suit unit had been completed in pursuance of an interim order passed by the learned Trial Judge.
9. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Trial Judge, the instant appeal was filed.
10. Let us now consider as to how far the learned Trial Judge was justified in passing the impugned order in the facts of the present case.
11. On reading the application for temporary injunction, we
