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

2015 Supreme(Raj) 1390

R.S.CHAUHAN
Narayan Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Applicant:Anoop Dhand, Advocate.
For the Complainant:G.S. Gautam, Advocate.
For the State: Soniya Shandilya, Public Prosecutor.

JUDGMENT

1. - Heard Mr. Anoop Dhand, for the applicant, Mr. 6.S. Gautam for the complainant and Ms. Soniya Shandilya, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Mr. Anoop Dhand has submitted that initially by Agreement dated 3.3.2012 the complainant had sold the property to the applicant through an agreement to sell. According to the agreement, the property was sold to the applicant for a sum of Rs. 3 lac, but the applicant has paid Rs. 1.50 lac to the complainant. It was agreed that the remaining amount would be paid at the time of registration of the sale-deed. However, the complainant did not get the sale-deed registered. Instead, on 14.3.2012 he sold the same property to Smt. Mali Devi. Since the complainant was not getting the sale-deed registered, on 14.2.2014 the applicant filed a civil suit for specific performance. He also filed a criminal complainant against the complainant on 11.2.2014. As a counter blast to the legal remedies persued by the applicant, the present F.I.R. was lodged by the complaint, Kailash Chand Kabra on 9.3.2014. Despite the fact the entire case is a civil dispute between the two parties, the applicant was arrested on 10.12.2014. He is languishing







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