Dismissed

Laxman K. Agarwal v. Bridget Southo and Anr.

Bombay HC30 Nov 2011APP/788/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal against a Single Judge order denying interim injunction in a specific performance suit for a 2/3rd share in a flat. The defendant voluntarily offered to deposit the consideration amount, removing prior objections. The High Court refused to interfere with the lower court's order.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the appeal lodging order was not interfered with.

Laxman K. Agarwal Vs Bridget Southo and Anr. — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2011)

gopi

app-759-11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

APPEAL LODGING NO.759 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.736 OF 2011 IN SUIT NO.552 OF 2011

¶7

Mr. Laxman K. Agarwal ..Appellant V/s. Ms.Bridget Souto & Anr. ..Respondents.

¶8

Mr.Shailesh Shah, Senior Advocate with Munir Merchant for the appellant.

¶9

Ms. Armin Wandrewala, for the respondent No.1.

¶10

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J., & MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.

¶11

DATED : 30 November 2011.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

This appeal is directed against the order dated 18 October 2011 of the learned trial Judge of this Court rejecting the Notice of Motion taken out by the appellant-plaintiff to injunct the respondent no.1-defendant no.1 from creating any third party interest in the suit flat for which defendant no.1 had executed an agreement dated 16 August 2010. The consideration mentioned in the agreement was Rs.7.12 crores. There is no dispute about the fact that defendant no.1 has 2/3^rd share in the flat. Only question is whether defendant no.1 agreed to sell her 2/3^rd share in the flat for the said consideration or whether the sale consideration was for the entire flat admeasuring 1561 sq.ft. carpet area and located in a

¶14

gopi 2

¶15

app-759-11

¶16

prime area of the city. The learned trial Judge has declined to grant interim injunction on the ground that admittedly third parties have raised claim in respect of the flat and that the plaintiff was aware of the fact that the siblings of defendant no.1 had share in the suit flat. The said siblings have not been impleaded in the suit, so also an order appointing a Receiver would affect the other parties who are not before the Court. The learned trial Judge, therefore, held that the relief of specific performance cannot be granted.

¶17

The learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has submitted that since defendant no.1 has executed the agreement, atleast the suit would be maintainable for her 2/3^rd share in the flat.

¶18

The learned counsel for the respondent no.1-defendant no.1 has submitted that as against the consideration of Rs.7.12 crores mentioned in the agreement, which consideration, according to defendant no.1 was for her 2/3^rd share in the flat, all that the plaintiff has paid is Rs.17,00,000/-. It is submitted that the plaintiff, therefore, may not be granted any interim relief in respect of the suit flat which is worth about Rs.10.00 crores.

¶19

The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is ready to deposit Rs.7.12 crores with the Court if he gets possession of the suit flat.

¶20

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it clearly appears that since defendant no.1 has only 2/3^rd share in the suit flat and the other co-owners are not before the Court, there would not be any question of appointing the Receiver or permitting the plaintiff to take

gopi

app-759-11

over possession of the flat upon his depositing the amount stipulated in the agreement.

¶25

We record the statement coming from the learned counsel for defendant no.1 that defendant no.1 will deposit the amount of Rs.17,00,000/- with 12% interest per annum within two months from today in the Court. The statement is made in the presence and under the instructions of defendant no.1 who is present in the Court.

¶26

In view of the above statement, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

¶27

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶28

(MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

Laxman K. Agarwal v. Bridget Southo and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman K. Agarwal v. Bridget Southo and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asha R. Desai Vs Suhas P. Thakur and Anr.

Association for Aiding Justice Vs Union of India and Ors.

Smt. Aruna Ajit Ghaisas Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Suresh Shripast Mhatre Vs the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 4 Ors.

Hashmat Parkar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shashi Laxman Kadam Vs Red Stone Realators and 4 Ors.