Allowed

M/S. Sagar Construction Co. v. Manoharlal K. Gupta, HUF and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Jul 2014CHS/139/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This chamber order allowed the plaintiff's amendment to the plaint under Section 21 and 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The amendment sought to enhance the claim for damages and set off amounts paid to the State Bank of India towards the consideration.

What did the court decide?

Chamber Summons made absolute allowing amendment of plaint within two weeks; Defendants permitted to file additional written statement within four weeks.

M/S. Sagar Construction Co. Vs Manoharlal K. Gupta, HUF… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

16.chs.139.2014.doc

¶2

dik

¶3

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

¶4

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 139 OF 2014 IN SUIT NO.3463 OF 1987

¶5

Messrs Sagar Construction Co. ...Applicant/Plaintiff. vs Manoharlal Kishorilal Gupta & Ors. ...Defendants

¶6

Mr Virag Tulzapurkar Sr. Advocate with Ms Alpana Ghone & Ms Vileena Mirasee i/b Shah & Sanghvi for the Plaintiff. Mr R.D.Misra for Defendant Nos.4A to 4C

¶7

CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.

¶8

JULY 21, 2014

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

The Chamber Summons is taken out by the Plaintiff for amendment of the plaint basically seeking to enhance the claim of damages prayed for in the suit. The suit is for specific performance of an agreement for sale. The Plaintiff's case is that in pursuance of the proceedings filed by the State Bank of India, namely, Suit No.199 of 1986, who claimed to be mortgagees of the suit property, a consent decree was passed and the Plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.1,53,40,01695 to the State Bank of India. This amount has been adjusted by the Plaintiff towards the consideration payable in respect of the suit property to the Defendants. The Plaintiff now wants to add this amount to his claim and also make necessary averments in connection therewith in the plaint. Also, the Plaintiff seeks to enhance the claim for damages in the alternative to the claim for specific performance.

¶11

2 The learned Counsel for Defendant Nos.4A to 4C opposes the amendment on merits. Under Section 21 and 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the Court can at any stage of the proceedings allow the Plaintiff to claim

¶12

16.chs.139.2014.doc

¶13

compensation in addition to or in substitution of the performance, as also apply for refund of any earnest money paid, in case the Plaintiff's application for specific performance is refused. Thus, in principle, there can be no objection to the amendment being allowed. Merits of the averments and the relief sought to be claimed, will be decided at the trial. The Defendants will have an opportunity to deal with the averments, in the additional Written Statement that the Defendants may be permitted to file.

¶14

3 Accordingly, Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Amendment be carried out within a period of two weeks from today. Amended copy of the plaint be served on the Defendants. The Defendants are permitted to file additional Written Statement within a period of four weeks of service of the amended copy of the plaint. Chamber Summons is disposed of accordingly.

¶15

Pg 2 of 2

M/S. Sagar Construction Co. v. Manoharlal K. Gupta, HUF and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Sagar Construction Co. v. Manoharlal K. Gupta, HUF and Ors.

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

Primeland Contructions Vs Mohammad Afzal Shikh Farid and 8 Ors.

Yusuf Vali Mohd. Bilakhiya Vs Hitesh Enterprises and 7 Ors.

Ushdev International Limited and 2 Ors. Vs Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd. and 6 Ors.

Gurusharan Pal Singh Bhasin and Anr. Vs Ravinder Singh Dhall

Gurusharan Pal Singh Bhasin and Anr. Vs Ravinder Singh Dhall

Anchor Buildcon Private Limited Vs Nutan Jeevan Co-Operative Housing Society Limited