JAYANT NATH
BDR Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Shyam Lal Arora – Respondent
The maintainability of the recovery suit depends on several factors, including whether the suit was filed within the prescribed statutory period, whether the proper parties were involved, and whether the claim falls within the scope of recoverable amounts under the relevant law.
Based on the information provided, the suit appears to have been filed appropriately, and the claims are related to a breach of agreement, which generally falls within the realm of civil suits for recovery of dues or damages. If the suit was filed within the limitation period and the necessary procedural requirements were met, then the recovery suit would likely be maintainable (!) .
However, without specific details regarding the procedural aspects, such as whether the suit was filed within the limitation period or if the proper jurisdiction was chosen, a definitive conclusion cannot be reached. Generally, if these procedural requirements are satisfied, the recovery suit would be maintainable under civil law principles (!) .
In summary, based on the typical legal framework and the information available, the recovery suit appears to be maintainable provided it adheres to procedural and statutory requirements.
Jayant Nath, J.
1. The present suit is filed seeking a decree of specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 28.10.2005 pertaining to property No.E-4, Kalkaji, New Delhi measuring 280 sq.yds. owned by the defendant. As per the Agreement to Sell the agreed sale/transfer price was Rs.3.60 crores. An amount of Rs.20 lacs was paid at the time of signing of the agreement by the plaintiff to the defendant. The Agreement further provided that an additional sum of Rs.1.10 crores will be paid to the defendant on demand by the defendant or within two weeks of the date of signing of the Agreement, whichever occurs earlier. The balance sum of Rs.2.30 crore was to be received by the defendant at the time of handing over the vacant physical possession of the property to the plaintiff within five months i.e. by 27.03.2006. Simultaneously the defendant was to sign and execute all relevant documents such as sale deed etc.
2. As per the plaintiff, at the time of the agreement there were a number of positive representations and claims made by the defendant regarding the utility and market value of the said property and that the plaintiff was given an impression that the user of the prope
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.