Allowed

Srichand Vishindas Gorwani v. Queens Villa Developers Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC22 Jul 2014CHS/1419/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants an amendment to the plaint in a specific performance suit regarding a property shortfall, allowing add-on averments and a prayer for court deposit. Limitation and estoppel objections were kept open for trial.

What did the court decide?

Chamber Summons made absolute for amendment of plaint adding averments on sanctioned plan and prayer for deposit of Rs. 6 crores.

Srichand Vishindas Gorwani Vs Queens Villa Developers… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

chs1419-11.doc

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1419 OF 2011

¶6

¶7

SUIT NO.670 OF 2008

¶8

Srichand Vishindas Gorwani ...Plaintiff

¶9

¶10

Queens Villa Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Defendants.

¶11

Ms. Mona Malhotra, i/b. Avadhesh Misra, for the Plaintiff.

¶12

Mr. S.V. Doijode along with Ms. Mrinalini Rajpal, i/b. M/s. Doijode Associates, for Defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

¶13

CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.

¶14

DATED: JULY 22, 2014

¶15

P.C. : .

¶16

. The Chamber Summons is taken out by the Plaintiff for amendment of the Plaint.

¶17

The suit is filed for specific performance of an agreement contained in a 'Memorandum of Intent' dated 26.09.2003 (“MOI”) read with the conveyance dated 25.01.2005. The Plaintiff along with his brother – Defendant No.3 – claims to be the owner of a land together with a bungalow standing thereon at Bandra (West) in Mumbai. By the MOI, the Plaintiff and Defendant No.3 agreed to sell to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 the said property subject to retention of the right to construct

¶18

Pg 1 of 3

¶19

chs1419-11.doc

¶20

two flats at the 10^th and 9^th floor levels in the new building proposed to be constructed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit property, of the dimensions as specified in the MOI. The MOI was followed by a conveyance executed by the Plaintiff and Defendant No.3, confirming the stipulations of the MOI. It is the Plaintiff's case in the suit that there was a shortfall of the area allotted to the Plaintiff in the flat on 10^th floor of the new building by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The suit accordingly seeks specific performance of the MOI and conveyance, seeking various reliefs in respect of such performance. In the alternative to specific performance, the Plaintiff has sought damages of about Rs.5.70 crores towards making good of the shortfall area. In addition the Plaintiff has claimed mesne profits and damages.

¶21

By the present Chamber Summons, the Plaintiff seeks to add some averments in the plaint, particularly concerning a final sanctioned plan in respect of the new building constructed in the suit property purportedly disclosing the alleged shortfall. The Plaintiff also seeks to add a prayer for deposit of an amount of Rs. 6 crores in Court by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

¶22

The Chamber Summons is opposed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Learned Counsel for the Defendants submits that the relief sought to be added is barred by the law of limitation; that the Plaintiff is estopped from claiming any such relief; and that the prayer for deposit sought to be added is misconceived.

¶23

The merits of the averments sought to be incorporated and

¶24

Pg 2 of 3

¶25

chs1419-11.doc

¶26

the prayer sought to be added are matters of trial which will be decided at the hearing of the Motion and the Suit. The shortfall and resultant damages are already claimed in the plaint as originally filed. The Plaintiff merely seeks to produce further material in support and add a relief which is really an interlocutory prayer in aid of the relief already claimed in the Suit. There can possibly be no objection to such amendment being allowed. In any event, the issues concerning limitation and estoppal can be kept open, to be decided at the hearing.

¶27

The Chamber Summons is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).

¶28

All the contentions of the parties, including the contentions in respect of limitation and estoppal are expressly kept open.

¶29

( S.C. GUPTE, J. )

¶30

Pg 3 of 3

Srichand Vishindas Gorwani v. Queens Villa Developers Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srichand Vishindas Gorwani v. Queens Villa Developers Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

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

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

Srichand Vishindas Gorwani Vs Queen Villa Developers Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

anjan deviprasad kejriwal Vs anil deviprasad kejriwal and 11 Ors.

Oxford Constructions and Infraprojects Vs Anant R. Vaity and 16 Ors.