The main legal point established is that a claim for specific performance must meet the requirements of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and receipt of a refund may preclude entitlement to specific performance.

1. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit pleading,

(i) that the defendant no.1 Fiorano Motors LLP, a partnership of defendant no.2 Ashish Choradia and defendant no.3 Ujjawal Sampat Chordia, representing itself to be the sole agent/dealer/importer of the defendant no.5 Ferrari S.P.A Italy, in or about September – October, 2011, offered to sell to the plaintiff a 599 GTB F1 Ferrari Car representing that if the plaintiff bought the said car, the plaintiff shall be given the first month production of new F 12 Berlinetta Car, a new model of Ferrari, which the defendant no.5 was going to launch within next 12 months and the defendant no.5 will take back the Ferrari 599 GTB F1 Car of the plaintiff at 80% of the value of the Car; the defendant no.1 gave the plaintiff a letter dated 9th November, 2011 containing the aforesaid proposal and bearing the seal of the defendant no.5 in confirmation thereof;

(ii) that the plaintiff, believing the representations of the defendants no.2,&3, purchased the Ferrari 599 GTB F1 car believing that the plaintiff would receive the first month’s production of new F12 Berlinetta Car which the defendant no.5 was going to launch in the next 12 months;

(iii) that by further relying on aforesaid representations of defendants no.1 to 3, the plaintiff placed an order on defendant no.5 through defendant no.1 for purchase of Ferrari Motor Car F12 Berlinetta Model FERRARI F152 AB E Bearing VIN/Chasis No.ZFF74UHC000197432 AND Engine No.207092 and paid Rs.50 lacs out of the agreed final price of Rs.4,29,01,417/- to the defendant no.1;

(iv) that the plaintiff, on 26th March, 2013, paid a further amount of Rs.2,50,00,000/- to the defendant no.1, making a total payment of Rs.3 crores, being almost 80% of the final price agreed between the parties;

(v) that it was agreed at the time of placing the order that the price was inclusive of the Customs Duty and other miscellaneous charges;

(vi) that it was further agreed that as and when the vehicle comes to India, Customs Duty and other charges if any to get the vehicle cleared from the Customs would be paid by the defendants no.1,2&3;

(vii) that it was also agreed that the defendants no.1, 2 & 3 would also get the vehicle cleared from defendant no.6 Commissioner of Customs, Union of India, through its Custom House Agent;

(viii) that the defendant no.4 Automobilia Italia Pvt. Ltd. has also been promoted by the defendant no.2 and it was represented to the plaintiff that the defendant no.4 has been floated at the instance of defendant no.5. for carrying out the import of the vehicles;

(ix) that the defendant no.2, in March, 2013, took away the 599 GTB F1 Car of the plaintiff on the assurance that he will sell it for Rs.3,24,41,834/- and further promised that the plaintiff will soon receive delivery of the F12 Berlinetta Car;

(x) that the defendants no.1,2&3 however neither gave delivery of F12 Berlinetta Car nor deposited the sale proceeds of 599 GTB F1 Car that had been entrusted by the plaintiff to the defendants no.1, 2 & 3;

(xi) that the plaintiff received a letter dated 19th May, 2014 from defendant no.5 to the effect that defendant no.1 was no more the authorised dealer or Indian Importer of Ferrari Cars and that the defendant no.5 had terminated its agreement with the defendant no.1 in April, 2014;

(xii) that the plaintiff was further informed that the vehicle agreed to be sold to the plaintiff was lying with the defendant no.6, waiting for the defendants no.1, 2 & 3 to take delivery;

(xiii) the defendant no.5 thereby wrongly denied its responsibility to get the vehicle delivered to the plaintiff;

(xiv) that since the defendants no.1, 2 & 3 failed and neglected in their duty to pay the Customs Duty and to have the vehicle released, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendants no.1 , 2 & 3; (xv) that the defendants no.1, 2 & 3 though promised to return part of the sale consideration to the plaintiff did not do so; (xvi) that on learning of the whereabou