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

2014 Supreme(Del) 1642

JAYANT NATH
BDR Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Shyam Lal Arora – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Plaintiff :Harish Malhotra, Senior Advocate with Sanjay Goswami, Advocate.
For the Defendant :M.P. Raju, Mary Scaria, Advocates.

Judgement Key Points

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.


Judgment :

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


































































































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