2006 (11) TMI 720 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Confirms Injunction Against Creating Third-Party Interests; Suit for Specific Performance and Damages Proceeds

Deepak Ansal Versus Ansal Properties and Industries Limited and Ors.

The court declined the relief for the appointment of a receiver and an interim mandatory injunction for possession but confirmed the interim injunction ... - Issues Involved:1. Applications under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 and Order XL Rule 1 read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Application under Order VII Rule 11 and Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. Suit for specific performance, declaration, permanent injunction, and recovery of damages/mesne profits.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applications under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 and Order XL Rule 1 read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure:The plaintiff filed applications for interim injunction and appointment of a receiver, alleging that the defendants were threatening to cancel the allotment of the flat and create third-party interests. The plaintiff cited previous judgments to support the claim that there was a concluded agreement and that he would suffer irreparable loss if the defendants were not restrained. The defendants contested, arguing that the allotment was provisional and that additional charges were due. The court noted that for a concluded contract, the acceptance must be absolute and correspond with the terms of the offer. The court found that there were differences about the essential terms of the contract and that the plaintiff had not made the payments as directed by the court. Therefore, the court declined the relief for appointment of a receiver but confirmed the interim injunction restraining the defendants from creating third-party interests in the flat.2. Application under Order VII Rule 11 and Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure:The defendant No. 2 sought rejection of the plaint against him, arguing that no cause of action was disclosed against him as the agreement was executed by defendant No. 1, a corporate entity. The plaintiff countered that specific averments were made against defendant No. 2, who was allegedly responsible for the non-performance of contractual obligations. The court observed that the plaint disclosed a cause of action against defendant No. 2 and that the plaintiff was entitled to join all adverse claimants to avoid multiplicity of suits. The court held that the plaint should not be rejected against defendant No. 2 and dismissed the application for rejection or deletion.3. Suit for specific performance, declaration, permanent injunction, and recovery of damages/mesne profits:The plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement to sell a flat, alleging full payment of the consideration and non-delivery of possession by the defendants. The defendants argued that the allotment was provisional and that additional charges were due. The court considered whether there was a concluded agreement and found that there were differences about the essential terms. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to an interim mandatory injunction for possession but confirmed the interim injunction restraining the defendants from creating third-party interests in the flat. The court also noted that the plaintiff could recover damages/mesne profits if he succeeded in the suit.Conclusion:The court declined the relief for appointment of a receiver and interim mandatory injunction for possession but confirmed the interim injunction restraining the defendants from creating third-party interests in the flat. The application for rejection of the plaint against defendant No. 2 was dismissed, and the court held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action against him. The suit for specific performance, declaration, permanent injunction, and recovery of damages/mesne profits was allowed to proceed.