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

1995 Supreme(Del) 843

S.K.MAHAJAN
ANWAR ELAHI – Appellant
Versus
VINOD MISRA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
AMARDIP SINGH, DALJIT SINGH, MUKUL ROHTAGI, RAHUL GUPTA, RAVI GUPTA, W.A.NAMANI

S. K. Mahajan, J.

( 1 ) BY this order I propose to dispose of the application filed by one Mr. Basant Kamal Meattle for vacation of the order dated 25th September, 1995 and for permission to the applicant to complete the building stated to be in the final stages on the plot of land bearing No. 465, Sector 15-A, NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh as also the application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

( 2 ) THE facts in short which have resulted in the filing of the application are that the defendants are stated to have entered into an agreement to sell the aforesaid plot of land to the plaintiff and a formal agreement was executed between the parties on or around 14th October, 1986 which is stated to have been back dated to 7th October, 1986. A total sum of Rs. 2,00,000. 00 had been paid by the plaintiff to the defendants, out of a total sale consideration of Rs. 7. 50,000. 00. It is alleged in the plaint that in spite of repeated demands of the plaintiff, the defendants were not fulfulling their obligation under the agreement and the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement to sell. From the record I find that though service
















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