Disposed

Shreyas N. Khanolkar v. Narayan G. Dhuri

Bombay HC2 Feb 2012NMS/378/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

During revenue acquisition proceedings for a flat sale, this court issued an interim order restraining the defendant from transferring or alienating the property pending the final disposal of the suit regarding refund of payments.

What did the court decide?

Restraint on defendant from transferring, alienating, encumbering, parting with possession of, or creating third party rights in the suit flat pending final disposal of the suit.

Shreyas N. Khanolkar Vs Narayan G. Dhuri — Bombay HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

32.nms.378.11s.240.11

¶3

skt

¶4

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

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 778 OF 2011

¶6

¶7

SUIT NO. 240 OF 2011

¶8

Shreyas Narsingh Khanolkar ..Plaintiff

¶9

-Versus-

¶10

Narayan Gopal Dhuri ..Defendant

¶11

Mr. Mohit Bhansali i/b S.B. Prabhavalkar for the Plaintiff.

¶12

None for the Defendant.

¶13

CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 2^ND FEBRUARY 2012.

¶14

P.C.

¶15

1 The suit is filed for recovery of the amounts paid by the plaintiff pursuant to an agreement dated 31^st July 2008 entered into between the parties for the sale of a flat by the defendant to the plaintiff. Part payments were made under the said agreement. The defendant also handed over the original documents of title to the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s name has been entered in the records of the society. According to the plaintiff, it is concealed that an order has been passed by the Collector and that a payment of 50% premium was made for granting the NOC. The plaintiff, therefore, terminated the agreement and sought a refund of the amounts paid including towards stamp duty and registration charges aggregating to Rs.17.90 lacs. Rs.1 lac was repaid. The plaintiff has also made a claim

¶16

¶17

32.nms.378.11s.240.11

¶18

for compensation/damages and interest. The aggregate claim is Rs. 28,02,875/-.

¶19

3 In the written statement, the defendant agreed to repay the actual principal amount to the plaintiff. An amount of Rs.13.50 lacs was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant.

¶20

4 The defendant is absent. It is not necessary, at this stage, to consider the extent of the plaintiff’s right under Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In any even, at this stage, the defendant cannot sell the property to a third party with a clear title as the document of title are with the plaintiff.

¶21

5 In the circumstances, the Notice of Motion is disposed of by the following order :

¶22

(i) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the defendant shall not transfer, alienate, encumber, part with possession of and create any third party rights in respect of the suit flat.

¶23

(ii) Liberty to the defendant to apply to have this order vacated upon furnishing security in respect of the charge claimed by the plaintiff. The extent of the charge shall be decided in such application.

Shreyas N. Khanolkar v. Narayan G. Dhuri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shreyas N. Khanolkar v. Narayan G. Dhuri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dena Bank Vs Jigar C. Savla and 2 Ors.

Dena Bank Vs Harshad M. Nargolkar and Manohar K. Nargolkar

Skol Breweries Ltd. Vs Fortune Alcobrew Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Garden Construction Co. Vs Nagree Palace Chs. Ltd.

Blr Logistiks (India) Ltd. Vs Trade Bridge India P. Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Santoshkumar K. Gupta Vs Sumer Corporation