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

2017 Supreme(Del) 104

HIMA KOHLI
SIDHARTHA TAYAL – Appellant
Versus
DINESH GOEL – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Sandeep Garg, Advocate

ORDER :

1. The appellant/defendant has assailed the judgment dated 19.5.2016 passed by the learned trial court dismissing his suit for recovery of Rs.10,00,000/-instituted against the respondents/defendants on the ground that he had failed to fulfil the terms of the Agreement to Sell dated 5.4.2010 in respect of a commercial space bearing No.S-15, Second Floor, Cross River Mall, Karkardooma, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the shop’) and therefore, he is entitled to claim double of the earnest money from them.

2. A brief recapitulation of the relevant facts of the case is necessary. The appellant/plaintiff has instituted a suit for recovery against the respondents/defendants, through his father, Shri Sham Tayal, described as his power of attorney holder, stating inter alia that on 5.4.2010, he had entered into an agreement with the respondents/defendants through his father, for purchasing the shop. At that time, the respondents/defendants had asserted that they were the absolute owners of the shop. The deal was finalized for a sum of Rs.36,21,000/-. At the time of executing the Agreement to Sell, earnest money of Rs.5,00,000/-was paid in cash to the respondents/defendants and it w
















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