TARUN SAWHNEY Vs. UMA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Clause 20 of the first agreement and Clause 17 of the second agreement both dated 16.09.2009 which are the subject matter of this suit, read as under:

(2.) Relying upon the provisions contained in Section 14(1)(c) of Specific Relief Act, Defendants No. 3 and 5 have contained that since the agreements are determinable in nature, the suit is hit by the aforesaid provision and the agreements in question cannot be enforced. In support of their contention, the applicants have relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Her Highness Maharani Shantidevi P. Gaikwad v. Savjibhai Haribhai Patel and Ors., 2001 5 SCC 101and Central Bank of India v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. Ltd., 1965 AIR(SC) 1288

(3.) The application has been opposed by the Plaintiff who states that the contract is not determinable in nature and reliance on Section 14(1)(c) of Specific Relief Act, therefore, is totally misplaced.