A conditional agreement where payment is contingent upon the execution of a formal contract, and such payment is never realized, fails to establish a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction.

Judgment

1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant who sought temporary injunction before the Commercial Court and the same was rejected vide order dated 12.11.2025.

2. The case of the appellant is that they have entered into a development agreement with the respondent for developing the land belonging to the respondent admeasuring 9267 square yards. For the said purpose, on a plain paper, a hand written agreement/contract was entered into and an advance of sum of Rs.11,00,000/- was also given to the respondent. The respondent had admitted before the Commercial Court of the existence of such an agreement inspite thereto the learned Commercial Court proceeded to reject the Temporary Injunction Application holding that there was no valid agreement or contract between the parties.

3. Learned counsel has invited our attention to the said documents. It would be apposite to quote photocopy document (Annexure-2) for the purpose of adjudication of this appeal:

“vkt fnukad 17@04@2024 dks izFke i{k Jh jfo tks”kh iq= Jh lqjs”k tks”kh fuoklh tks”kh QkeZ gkskv vgesj jksM iqwjkuh pqaxh vgesj jksM Mh-Lkh-,e- t;iqj gSA mijksDr Hkwfe dk dqy ;ksx 9267 oxZxt gSA tks fd ---------------- esa dqN tehu tsMh, iV~Vs “kq)k gS o dqN tehu vkS/kkSfxd gSA ;s lc feykdj yxHkx 9267 oxZxt gSA mijksDr Hkwfe dk f}rh; i{k }kjk O;olkf;d o vkoklh; iV~Vk fy;k tk;sxkA ftlesa ;g r; gqvk gS fd f}rh; i{k ds rjQ ls lEiw.kZ [kpkZ djsxkA mldk leLr O;; izFke i{k dks fn;s tkus okys ,Mokal 15 djksM esa ls ,QtLV fd;k tkosxkA mlesa yxus okyk le; Hkh fudkydj 12 o 15 efguksa ds chp gksxkA mijksDr nksukas i{kksa ds e/; 50%50 dk fgLlk gksxk vkSj tks ,Mokal 15 djksM jkf”k izFke i{+k ds fgLls esa ls lek;ksftr fd;k tk;sxkA og tks lEiw.kZ ,fj;k dk cVoa kjk nksukas i{kkas dh vkilh lgefr ls fd;k tkosxkA mlds isVs vkt fnukad 17@04@2024 dks tfj;s pSd la[;k 002722 jfo tks”kh th ds uke ls fn;k x;k gSA ftldh jkf”k 1100000@& ¼v{kjs :i;s X;kjg yk[k½ gSA fu;e ,oa “krsZ ius ds ckn ;g ,xzhesaV is pSd yxk fn;k tkosxk ,oa djkj u gksus dh lwjr esa ;g pSd iqu% f}rh; i{k dks ykSVk fn;k tkosXkkA tks fd nksuksa i{k ds e/; gksus okys bdjkjukesa ls gh bdjkjukesa ds le; esa izkFkfed bdjkjukesa ds le; ,Mokal jkf”k fopkj”khy gksxhA”

4. Apparently from bare perusal of the above document, it is clear that there was no actual agreement arrived at between the parties and the cheque was only handed over with the stipulation that if the agreement would enter, then the said amount would be en-cashed, otherwise, the cheque would be handed over back to the appellant.

5. It is an admitted position that the cheque was never en-cashed and the respondent has stated that he has handed over back the cheque to the appellant.

6. In view thereof, no prima facie case is made out in favour of the appellant. Moreover, it cannot be said that the balance of convenience or irreparable loss lies in favour of the appellant. The order passed by the Commercial Court dated 12.11.2025 does not want any interference.

7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

8. All pending application(s) also stand disposed of.