https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306568 The court ruled that the suit was not multifarious as the transaction was treated as one encompassing the entire land sought to be purchased by the plaintiff. It held that the court in New Delhi had jurisdiction over the matter, rejecting the argument that jurisdiction lay in Maharashtra where the property was located. The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for interim relief, stating that no prima facie case for liability existed and the contentious issues regarding the breach of the Agreement to Sell made it unsuitable for such relief. en-us Thu, 03 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Feb 2023 17:09:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306568 The court ruled that the suit was not multifarious as the transaction was treated as one encompassing the entire land sought to be purchased by the plaintiff. It held that the court in New Delhi had jurisdiction over the matter, rejecting the argument that jurisdiction lay in Maharashtra where the property was located. The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for interim relief, stating that no prima facie case for liability existed and the contentious issues regarding the breach of the Agreement to Sell made it unsuitable for such relief. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 03 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306568