Dismissed¶22

Neelkanth Developers v. Shri Radhe Techbuild Pvt. Ltd. and others

Himachal Pradesh HC22 Mar 2025FAO(OS)/21/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court; FAO(OS) No.21 of 2024; Neelkanth Developers v Radhe Techbuild Pvt. Ltd.; interim injunction refused; OMP No.93 of 2023; Civil Suit No.12 of 2023; Single Judge order dated 23.07.2024; defendants No.5 and 6 landowners; no privity with plaintiff; balance of convenience against plaintiff; prima facie arguable case; agreement dated 23.11.2019; alleged forged second agreement; H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act approval lacking; appeal dismissed in limine; G.S. Sandhawalia Chief Justice; Ranjan Sharma Judge

What did the court decide?

None ¶22

Neelkanth Developers Vs Shri Radhe Techbuild Pvt. Ltd. and others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 23.07.2024 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the injunction application suffered from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in the present appeal. +3 more

¶22

Court's answer

The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in the present appeal.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Defendants No.5 and 6 could not be prejudiced, their interest having been rightly protected by the learned Single Judge.

¶17

Key takeaways

The balance of convenience is not in favour of the applicant-plaintiff and the defendants could not be put to loss by grant of injunction.ratio¶17
Money paid by the applicant-plaintiff to defendants No.2 to 4 is of no consequence as they were not owners of the land; the plaintiff shall be duly compensated at final disposal of the suit if refund is ordered.ratio¶21
The applicant-plaintiff did not take the necessary approval for purchasing the land under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

FAO(OS) No.21 of 2024 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, 22.03.2025; G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice and Ranjan Sharma, Judge): Appeal by plaintiff Neelkanth Developers against the learned Single Judge's order dated 23.07.2024 in Civil Suit No.12 of 2023 dismissing its injunction application (OMP No.93 of 2023). Held: defendants No.5 and 6, owners of the land with whom the plaintiff had no agreement, could not be prejudiced as their interest stood protected; balance of convenience was against the applicant-plaintiff, who could not put the defendants to loss by injunction; payment made to defendants No.2 to 4 (non-owners) was immaterial, compensation being possible at final disposal if refund is ordered; the plaintiff had not taken the approval required under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The impugned order was found free of illegality or irregularity; appeal dismissed in limine and pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

¶1

2025:HHC:8465

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

FAO(OS) No.21 of 2024 Decided on: 22.03.2025

¶4

__________________________________________________________ Neelkanth Developers

¶5

...Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Radhe Techbuild Pvt. Ltd. and Others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant: Mr. Shivank Singh Panta, Advocate.

¶10

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral]

¶11

Present appeal has been filed by the appellantplaintiff against the order dated 23.07.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Suit No.12 of 2023, titled as Neelkanth Developers Vs. Radha Techbuild Pvt. Ltd. & Others, whereby application [OMP No.93 of 2023] for injunction was dismissed. The reasoning as such given by learned Single Judge was that the plaintiff had no agreement with defendants No.5 and 6, who were owners of land and, therefore, they were not privy to the contract

¶12

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

¶14

2025:HHC:8465

¶15

with defendant No.1. It was accordingly held that in absence of any prima facie arguable case in favour of applicant-plaintiff, defendants No.5 and 6 would be deprived of use of the land to which they were entitled being owners and balance of convenience not being in favour of applicant-plaintiff, the application as such was dismissed.

¶16

2. The stand of defendants No.5 and 6 is that sale consideration was not paid to them and defendant No.1 did not acquire any title of land on the basis of the agreement dated 23.11.2019, due to which the injunction was declined. The second agreement of the same date vide which defendant No.1 had agreed to sell the same land to the plaintiff was a forged document.

¶17

3. We are of the considered opinion that in view of peculiar facts and circumstances, defendants No.5 and 6 thus, could not be prejudiced as their interest has been rightly protected by learned Single Judge. The balance of convenience is not in favour of the applicantplaintiff and the defendants thus, could not be put to loss by grant of injunction.

¶18

4. It has also come on record that applicant-

¶19

¶20

2025:HHC:8465

¶21

plaintiff did not take necessary approval of purchasing the land under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The argument that the money has been paid by the applicant-plaintiff to defendants No.2 to 4 is of no consequence as they were not owner’s of the land in question and the plaintiff shall be duly compensated at the time of final disposal of the suit, if refund is to be ordered.

¶22

5. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the order impugned does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, which would warrant interference in the present appeal. Resultantly, the same is dismissed, in limine.

¶23

6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶24

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

¶25

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge

¶26

March 22, 2025 [Bhardwaj]

Neelkanth Developers v. Shri Radhe Techbuild Pvt. Ltd. and others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelkanth Developers v. Shri Radhe Techbuild Pvt. Ltd. and others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Archana Koul Sharma Vs Dhani Loan and Services (Formerly Indiabulls Consumer Ltd.)

M/S Patel- Gammon Jv Vs Sjvn Ltd.

Chain Singh Vs Hpscscl

Ranjana Sharma Vs Kccb and Others

Sardar Manjeet Singh Vs Guljit Singh Kochhar S/o Late S. Manohar Singh Kochha

Sardar Harjit Singh Kochhar Vs Sardar Manjit Singh Kochhar

M/S Ashirwad Developers and Promoters Vs Ramji Dass S/o Sh. Tara Chand

Alventa Pharma Ltd. Vs Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh

State of Hp and Others Vs Keshav Ram and Others

State of Hp and Others Vs Lobhi Ram and Another

State of Hp and Naother Vs M/S Asphalt Carpet Construction Co.

State of Hp and Others Vs Aastha Katoch and Others

State of Hp and Anr. Vs Loktantra Senani Sangh Himachal Pradesh ( Aapatkal Bandiyon Ka Akhil Bhartiya Sangathan )

Virender Kumar Vs Hpscb and Others