Back
2001 Supreme(HP) 22
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
K.C.SOOD
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY - Appellant
Versus
H.P.NAGAR VIKAS PRADHIKARAN - Respondent
OMP No. 145 of 2000
Decided On : 01/12/2001
Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate, for the Applicant; Mr. V.D. Khidta, Advocate, for the Respondents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of interlocutory mandatory injunction and the principle that it should generally preserve or restore the status quo at the time of filing the suit.
Headnote:
specific performance - commercial area allotment - [Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure] - The court discussed the specific performance of the allotment letter for a commercial area and the application of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court analyzed the plaintiff's request for specific performance, the defendant's intention to allocate the area to a different party, and the considerations for granting interlocutory mandatory injunction.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an allotment agreement for a commercial area and requested the court to restrain the defendant from allocating the area to anyone else. The plaintiff had deposited the required amount and completed all formalities for the allotment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to interlocutory mandatory injunction as it would disturb the status quo. However, the defendant was restrained from allocating or delivering the possession of the area to anyone else until the disposal of the suit.
Issues: The issues revolved around the specific performance of the allotment letter, the defendant's intention to allocate the area to a different party, and the application of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principle that interlocutory mandatory injunction should generally be granted to preserve or restore the status quo at the time of filing the suit. The court considered the plaintiff's strong case for trial, the prevention of irreparable injury, and the balance of convenience.
Final Decision: The defendant was restrained from allocating or delivering the possession of the area to anyone else until the disposal of the suit. The previous orders in OMP No. 145/2000 were made absolute till the disposal of the suit.
Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—The plaintiff New India Assurance Company Limited has filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement for the allotment of 318 sq. metres Commercial Area, First Floor, of Block No. 42, KZC Commercial Complex (hereinafter referred to as "the area in question") under 2nd Partially Self Financing Scheme in Kusumpti, Shimla vide allotment letter dated November 30, 1999 issued by H.P. Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Kusumpti, Shimla i.e. defendant, and for restraining the defendant from allotting, transferring and delivering the possession to anyone else except the plaintiff and for damages of Rs. 50,000.
2. The plaintiff-company is a subsidiary of General Insurance Corporation of India having its head office at Bombay and divisional office at Shimla. Defendant, H.P. Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran formerly known as "Shimla Development Authority" had floated the second partially self-financing scheme in Kusumpti Zone, Shimla-9. The plaintiff requested the defendant Pradhikaran for allotment of the area in question developed by the defendant on priority basis for opening of its office. The defendant, as per the case of the plaintiff, vide communication dated 22.7.1999 informed the plaintiff that the area in question could be allotted to the plaintiff in the first floor of Block No. 42 which was under construction at the relevant time at the rate of Rs. 1,100 per sq. metre without internal partition walls and Rs. 12,500 per sq. metre without partition walls. The plaintiff company was requested to apply on the prescribed application form alongwith 20% of the total cost as earnest money so that further action to allot the area in question could be taken by Pradhikaran. The plaintiff submitted the requisite application and deposited a sum of Rs. 6,99,600 with the defendant on 10th of September, 1999 after completing formalities. The defendant called upon the plaintiff to pay the balance amount of Rs. 27,89,400 in four monthly instalments of Rs. 6,99,600 in the following manner :— 1st quarterly instalment due as on 9.1.2000 Rs. 6,99,600 2nd quarterly instalment due as on 9.2.2000 Rs. 6,99,600 3rd quarterly instalment due as on 9.3.2000 Rs. 6,99,600 4th quarterly instalment due as on 9.4.2000 Rs. 6,99,600
3. The plaintiff accordingly deposited all the instalments before the scheduled dates and completed his part of the contract and became entitled to take possession of the area in question as stipulated in the communication of the defendant.
4. The plaintiff came to know that the defendant wanted to hand over the possession of the area in question, which was to be allotted to the plaintiff, to some other institution and, therefore, requested the defendant on 28th of March, 2000 to deliver the possession of the area in question to the plaintiff and the plaintiff completed the formalities of the execution and registration of the formal lease deed. Defendant then sent a registered notice on 18th of April, 2000 but without any result.
5. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is being pressurised not to insist on the allotment of this particular area. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff requires this area immediately for shifting its divisional office. It is also pleaded that Rs. 34,98,000 deposited with the defendant is lying blocked unnecessarily causing irreparable loss, injury and damages to the plaintiff. The plaintiff-company, it is stated that it is ready and willing to take possession, execute and register the lease deed and bear the expenses for the same and also pay any other amount which may be payable by the plaintiff in further of the allotment letter issued to it.
6. In this background, plaintiff prays for specific performance of the allotment letter dated 30th November, 1999 issued by the defendant. In default, defendant prays that Court Officer be appointed to execute and register the lease deed and to deliver the possession of the area in question. A further prayer for permanent prohibitory
