Dismissed

Reynold Shirting Ltd. v. Nahid Hafeez Qureshi Patrawala

Bombay HC1 Aug 2012APP/211/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed an appeal seeking ad-interim injunction against the transfer of suit property. The court upheld the trial judge's refusal, noting the alleged oral agreement violated an existing court injunction, though directing the respondent to deposit earned money with interest.

What did the court decide?

High Court directed respondent to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs with interest at 12% per annum with the Prothonotary.

Reynold Shirting Ltd. Vs Nahid Hafeez… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2012)

gopi

app-lodg-460-12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

APPEAL LODGING NO.460 OF 2012 IN NOTICE OF MOTION LODGING NO.531 OF 2012 IN SUIT NO.1334 OF 2012

¶6

Reynold Shirting Ltd.

¶7

..Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Nahid Hafeez Qureshi Patrawala & Ors.

¶10

....Respondents.

¶11

Mr. Mustafa Doctor with Mr. Abhijeet C. Mahadeokar for the appellant. Mr. G.R. Joshi i/b. R.M.G. Law Associates for respondent No.1. Mr. Anil D'Souza with Mr. Abhijeet Shinde for respondent No.2.

¶12

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J.

¶13

DATE : 01 August 2012.

¶14

P.C.

¶15

This appeal is directed against the order dated 20 April 2012 of the learned trial Judge of this Court declining to grant ad-interim injunction in the Notice of Motion taken out by the appellantplaintiff to restrain respondent No.1 from transferring the suit property.

¶16

The appellant-plaintiff claims that defendant No.1 agreed to transfer the suit property to the plaintiff-appellant for a consideration of Rs.17 crores out of which Rs.50 lakhs was paid by way of earnest

¶17

1/4

¶18

gopi 2 app-lodg-460-12

¶19

money on 25 August 2011. Even according to the plaintiff-appellant's case there is no written agreement to sell, but the sole document relied upon by the plaintiff-appellant is the application dated 11 August 2011 allegedly sent by defendant No1 to MMRDA intimating that defendant No.1 had agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff-appellant.

¶20

The defendant No.1 pointed out that on the basis of the tripartite agreement dated 9 June 2005 between the father of defendant No.1, defendant No.2 and one Mr. Vijay Thakkar in Arbitration Petition No.409 of 2007 this Court had restrained defendant No.1 from transferring the suit property to any third party and that dispute between the parties to the proceedings shall be referred for arbitration and that the injunction restraining defendant No.1 from transferring the property which was granted as far back as on 25 January 2008 was continued till disposal of the arbitration proceedings. It is further stated that in Appeal No.155 of 2008 directed against the said injunction order, this Court had directed defendant No.2 to deposit a sum of Rs.15 crores. The said tripartite agreement permitted for transfer of the suit property by defendant No.1 to defendant No.2 for a consideration of Rs.23 crores and the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 25 April 2011 directed defendant No.2 to deposit Rs.15 crores. Defendant No.2 complied with the said direction and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 had entered into consent terms before the learned Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator has thereafter passed an award on 11^th May 2012 as modified by subsequent award dated 26 June 2012. That award has been challenged by Mr.Vijay Thakkar who claims to have entered into an agreement with the husband of defendant No.1 on 27 July 2004. It is the contention of defendants that the present plaintiff-appellant has been set

¶21

2/4

¶22

gopi 3 app-lodg-460-12

¶23

up by Mr. Vijay Thakkar who had misguided defendant No.1 for parting with one document and for extracting a sum of Rs.50 lakhs which the plaintiff-appellant now claims that the plaintiff-appellant had paid the same to defendant No.1 as earnest money for purchasing the suit property for a consideration of Rs.17 crores.

¶24

Defendant No.1 has denied the signature on the application dated 11 August 2011 purportedly made by defendant No.1 to the MMRDA.

¶25

The learned trial Judge has held that the plaintiff's case that there was an oral agreement for transferring the suit property for a consideration of Rs.17 crores cannot be accepted. The learned trial Judge also held that the payment of Rs.50 lakhs on 25 August 2011, the application made to MMRDA on 11 August 2011 without any consideration. In view of the above and also in view of the fact that the alleged suit agreement was entered into in clear violation of the interim injunction granted by this Court on 25 January 2008 which is in operation till then, it is clear that no rights could said to have been created on the basis of an oral agreement which was in violation of the aforesaid interim injunction granted by this Court as far back as on 25 January, 2008.

¶26

For all the above reasons we are in agreement with the learned trial Judge of this Court that the plaintiff has not made out any case for grant of any ad-interim relief. However,at the same time, since defendant No.1 had received Rs.50 lakhs on 23 August 2011 we direct that the defendant No.1 shall deposit with the Prothonotary & Senior Master

3/4

4 app-lodg-460-12

gopi

of this Court the sum of Rs.50 lakhs with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 25 August 2011 till the date of deposit which shall be made within three weeks from today. In case of default this appeal shall be restored to file and notified for further hearing.

¶31

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶32

(N.M. JAMDAR, J.)

¶33

4/4

Reynold Shirting Ltd. v. Nahid Hafeez Qureshi Patrawala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reynold Shirting Ltd. v. Nahid Hafeez Qureshi Patrawala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Sadhana Andhalkar Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Anahita Pandole Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors. and Johnny Joseph and Anr.

Dr. Anahita Pandole Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mohinder Kaur Kochar, Vs Mayfair Housing Private Ltd.

Mr. Ashok Shinde and Ors. Vs Mr. K. v. J. Roa and Ors.

Mr. Ashok Shinde and Ors. Vs Mr. K. v. J. Roa and Ors.