Appeal against refusal of temporary injunction in a suit seeking declaration that a 2010 development agreement was valid and binding, without claiming specific performance. The court held the suit prima facie barred by the proviso to Section 34, Specific Relief Act, and dismissed the appeal under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
9th April, 2026 (AK) 72
FMA 1719 of 2025
IA No: CAN 1 of 2025
VIR Bhan Goel & Sons (HUF) Vs.
Skynet Tradecom Private Limited and another
Mr. Prabal Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jaydeb Kr. Das
….for the appellant.
Ms. Kumkum Mukherjee Ms. Arpita Saha
...for the respondents.
2
effect to a subsequent registered development agreement dated September 27, 2022.
3
of the year 2010 without the plaintiff being tied up with the liability to seek a specific performance of the same.
4
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
(Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a declaration of validity of an unregistered development agreement without consequential relief of specific performance is barred by proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
Whether the trial court rightly refused temporary injunction on that ground.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vir Bhan Goel & Sons (HUF)
Skynet Tradecom Private Limited
another
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
Biswaroop Chowdhury
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
