RADHAKISHAN SHIVKISAN DAMANI Vs. H.PADMANABHAO RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the Advocates. This is plaintiff's suit for specific performance of contract and the Motion is taken out for appointment of Receiver and injunction. Defendant Nos.5 and 6 who had entered into Agreement of Sell subsequent to the Agreement of the plaintiff, were added as parties and both the reliefs are claimed against them also.

(2.) THE Agreement for Sale is for a sum of Rs.2.50 crores. Admittedly the plaintiffs have so far paid Rs.2.30 lacs by cheque and further a sum of Rs.11.00 lacs. In other words out of a consideration of Rs.2.50 crores the plaintiffs have paid only Rs.13.30 lacs. The suit property is in possession of the defendants and pending disposal of the suit the defendants cannot be dispossessed by appointing Receiver. Apart from this, no case for appointment of Receiver was made out by the plaintiff. By an order dated 11.8.1993 in Chamber Summons status quo was granted and it is continued till this date.

(3.) ON the other hand the Motion was opposed by all the defendant. It was contended by the counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 Mr.Bhat that Exhibit 'A' was not at all any Agreement but it was a Financial Agreement between the parties. He also contended that if the Agreement for sell was for a sum of Rs.2.50 crores then it should have been in a regular form and Exhibit 'A' should not under any circumstances be constituted as a concluded contract are between the parties. Mr.Bhat also contended that there was no compliance by plaintiff to provisions of 237(1), Section 269 and Section 248(A) of the Income Tax Act. He further contended that the plaintiff did not give any form under Section 37(1) within the stipulated period of 15 day and since the compliance to provisions of Income-tax was condition precedent and mandatory, the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. He also argued that the plaintiff did not pay Rs.90.00 lacs to the Central Bank and committed breach.