Advocates:
['KANGA', 'CO', 'JHANGIANI NARULA', 'ASSOCIATES', '', 'DEFENDANT NOS TO', 'VIVEK SHARMA', 'M/S LAW CHARTER', 'T JARIWALA & ASSOCIATES']

Suit 1754-1994.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

SUIT NO.1754 OF 1994

G. Premjee Trading Private Limited

A Company incorporated and registered

under the provisions of Companies Act,

having offce at 1003, Dalamal House,

206, Nariman Point,

Mumbai – 400 021.

...Plaintiff

vs.

1. Abdul Kader Haji Noormohammed

Indian Inhabitant

R/o.Flat NO.12, Sunfooer CooOperative Housing

Society, 27o B, Carter Road,

Bandra (o), Mumbai 400 050.

2. Mehmooda Aboobaker Haji Noormohammed

Indian Inhabitant

R/o. Le Repose Building, 3^rd Floor,

Urmistan Premises CooOperative Housing

Society Limited, 8, Master Vinayak Road,

Bandra (o), Mumbai 400 050.

3. Rumana Aboobakar

Indian Inhabitant

R/o. Le Repose Building, 3^rd Floor,

Urmistan Premises CooOperative Housing

Society Limited, 8, Master Vinayak Road,

Bandra (o), Mumbai 400 050.

4. Rizoan Aboobaker

Indian Inhabitant

R/o. Le Repose Building, 3^rd Floor,

Urmistan Premises CooOperative Housing

Society Limited, 8, Master Vinayak Road,

Bandra (o), Mumbai 400 050.

Vishal Parekar, P.A.

1/83

Suit 1754-1994.doc

5. Natasha Aboobaker

Indian Inhabitant

R/o. Le Repose Building, 3^rd Floor,

Urmistan Premises CooOperative Housing

Society Limited, 8, Master Vinayak Road,

Bandra (o), Mumbai 400 050.

6. Hamza Aboobaker

Indian Inhabitant

R/o. Le Repose Building, 3^rd Floor,

Urmistan Premises CooOperative Housing

Society Limited, 8, Master Vinayak Road,

Bandra (o), Mumbai 400 050.

...Defendants

Mr. Gauraj Shah a/o. Ms. Deepti Nagpal and Mr. Karshil Shah i/

b. Kanga & Company, for the Plaintiff.

Mr. Rajesh Shah, Mr. Piyush Raheja, Ms. Jyoti Ghag, Mr.

Shailesh Prajapati i/b. Dua Associates, for the Defendant Nos.1

and 3.

Mr. Advait Raorane a/o. Mr. Rajiv Narula i/b. Jhangiani,

Narula and Associates, for the Defendant Nos. 4 to 6.

CORAM :

N.J. JAMADAR, J.

RESERVED ON :

21^st JANUARY, 2021

PRONOUNCED ON : 8^th JUNE, 2021

ooooooooooooooo

JUDGMENT :

.

This is a suit for specifc performance of a contract for

sale of a premises consisting of freehold land bearing fnal plot

No. No. 257, Toon Planning Scheme No. III, City Survey No.

F/751 admeasuring 580 sq.yards together oith the structure

standing therein, situated at Bandra, Mumbai (“the suit

Vishal Parekar, P.A.

2/83

Suit 1754-1994.doc

premises”) contained in the agreement dated 26^th June, 1993

and, in the alternative, for refund of the earnest amount paid

thereunder along oith compensation and damages.

2.

The material averments in the plaint can be stated in

brief as under:

a)

The plaintiff is a private limited company registered

under the Companies Act, 1956. The suit premises oas

acquired by Abdul Kader Haji Noormohammed and his sons

under a Conveyance Deed dated 22^nd April, 1960. The suit

premises oas treated as an asset of the partnership “M/s. Noor

Sons” formed by the members of the family of Abdul Kader Haji

Noormohammed. Over a period of time, the constitution of the

frm suffered changes and Abdul Kader Haji Noormohammed,

the defendant No. 1, and late Aboobaker Haji Noormohammed

oere its partners before the frm stood dissolved, oith the

death of Aboobaker on or about 4^th May, 1985. The late

Aboobaker left behind the defendant Nos.2 to 6 as his heirs and

legal representatives. The defendant Nos. 2 to 6 thus succeeded

to the half share of late Aboobaker in the suit premises in

defnite shares.

Vishal Parekar, P.A.

3/83

Suit 1754-1994.doc

b)

The defendant Nos. 1 to 6 executed an agreement dated

26^th June, 1993 (“the suit agreement”) and thereunder agreed

to sale the suit premises to the plaintiff for a consideration of

Rs. 4 crores subject to compliance of the provisions contained

in Chapter XXC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as then stood. The

defendant Nos. 4 to 6 oere minor on the date of the execution

of the suit agreement and, thus, the defendant No. 2 had

represented the defendant Nos. 4 to 6 and executed the suit

agreement for and on behal