REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Rajeev Miglani Appellant

V/S

Urmil Gujral Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

RAMESH CHAND VERSUS SURESH CHAND AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
KAILAS SIZING,WORKS V. MUNICIPALITY,B. AND N. [REFERRED TO]
H VENKATACHALA IYENGAR VS. B N THIMMAJAMMA [REFERRED TO]
RAM BARAN PRASAD VS. RAM MOHIT HAZRA [REFERRED TO]
JASWANT KAUR VS. AMRIT KAUR [REFERRED TO]
NARANDAS KARSONDAS VS. S A KAMTAM [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD NOORUL HODA VS. BIBI RAIFUNNISA [REFERRED TO]
R K MOHAMMAD UBAIDULLAH VS. HAJEE C ABDUL WAHAB [REFERRED TO]
RAM NIWAS DEAD VS. BANO [REFERRED TO]
GURDEV KAUR VS. KAKI [REFERRED TO]
BACHHAJ NAHAR VS. NILIMA MANDAL [REFERRED TO]
SUHRID SINGH ALIAS SARDOOL SINGH VS. RANDHIR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ LAMP AND INDUSTRIES PVT LTD VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
VEERAMALAI VANNIAR VS. THADIKARA VANNIAR [REFERRED TO]
M.B. RAMESH VS. K.M. VEERAJE [REFERRED TO]
MUPPUDATHI VS. KRISHNASWAMI [REFERRED TO]
MUMMIDI REDDI PAPANNAGARI YELLA REDDY VS. SALLA SUBBI REDDY [REFERRED TO]
MRS. A. KANTHAMANI VS. MRS. NASREEN AHMED [REFERRED TO]
DECCAN PAPER MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. REGENCY MAHAVIR PROPERTIES [REFERRED TO]
UMADEVI NAMBIAR VS. THAMARASSERI ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Introduction:

(2.) The aforesaid suit was instituted under Sec. 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ("Specific Relief Act") by the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 herein, i.e., Smt. Urmil Gujral, inter alia, seeking a declaration that the Agreement to Sell dtd. 18/8/2006 executed by the defendant no.1/respondent no. 2, i.e., Shri Som Nath in favour of the defendant no. 2/appellant, i.e., Shri Rajeev Miglani, as null and void, and seeking cancellation of the same. There was further prayer seeking a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the appellant and respondent no. 2 from entering into any transaction in respect of the property, admeasuring 100 sq. yards, and bearing No. 10/64, Tihar-I, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi- 110027 ("suit property"), on the basis of the Agreement to Sell dtd. 18/8/2006 and the Substitution Letter dtd. 8/8/2006.

(3.) The Trial Court, vide the impugned judgment, decreed the suit and passed a decree of declaration in favour of the respondent no. 1 and against the appellant to the effect that the Agreement to Sell dated 18 th August, 2006 executed by respondent no. 2 in favour of the appellant, is null and void. The Trial Court also passed a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the respondent no. 1, thereby, restraining the appellant and respondent no. 2 from entering into any transaction of any nature in respect of the suit property, on the basis of the Agreement to Sell dtd. 18/8/2006, or on the basis of Substitution Letter dtd. 8/8/2006.

Click here to view full judgment.

RAJEEV MIGLANI Vs. URMIL GUJRAL

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address