VRAJLAL SHAH Vs. BALAZ ADVERTISING PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave under Rule 127 of the High Court of judicature at Bombay (O.S.), 1980 granted to the plaintiffs to take out Chamber Summons in terms of the draft Chamber Summons handed in, Chamber Summons made returnable forthwith Chamber Summons to be registered.

(2.) By an agreement for sale, dated 22nd December, 1979, the plaintiffs agreed to permit the defendants to utilize a part of the suit property for construction of a luxury hotel and to convey the suit property to the defendants or their nominees, upon the terms and conditions as therein stated. This agreement was, however, succeeded by another agreement dated 25th June, 1982, in view of the fact that the property which belonged to HUF had been partitioned. It is claimed that the plaintiffs failed and neglected to carry out their obligations under the said agreement dated 25th June, 1982. On 12th November, 1984, it was agreed between the representative of the parties inter alia that a further sum of Rs.35,000/- together with interest thereon would be paid over the plaintiff immediately, and the balance price together with interest thereon will be paid to the plaintiffs upon completion of the suit transac tions. It was also agreed that the suit transaction will be completed by the defendants on or before 30th November, 1985. This agreement was duly recorded by the plaintiffs' advocate's letter dated 12th November, 1984. Despite several reminders, the defendants failed and neglected to complete the said sale or to carry out their obligation under the agreement dated 25th June, 1992. The plaintiffs gave a final notice through their advocate to the defendants on 28th December, 1993. The defendants did not reply to the aforesaid notice. Thus, the plaintiffs have terminated both the agreements dated 22nd December, 1979 and 25th June, 1982. It is therefore, prayed that this Court be pleased to order and declare that both the said agreements dated 22nd December, 1979 and 25th June, 1982, as well as the Power of Attorney have been validly terminated and/or that the same stand rescinded. It is further prayed that the defendants be restrained by a permanent order and injunction from in any manner whatsoever dealing with or interfering with the suit property or the plaintiffs' possession or use or occupation thereof; or from in any manner whatsoever acting under or in furtherance of either of the said agreements dated 22nd December, 1979 and 25th June, 1982 or the said Power of Attorney.

(3.) The plaintiff thereafter took out Notice of Motion for interim reliefs, which was heard by Justice Lodha on 27th April, 1998. The said Notice of Motion was dismissed as the defendant No.1 filed an affidavit stating that third party rights have been created in favour of J.C.Bharwani & Associates and Ashok Rajani. In view of the above, it was observed that no relief can be granted in the Notice of Motion taken out by the plaintiffs. However, it was made clear that any rights created in favour of the third party by the defendants, shall be subject to the final decision in the suit. Thereafter the plaintiffs took out Chamber Summons No.866 of 1998 with a prayer to implead the aforesaid third parties. The Chamber Summons was made absolute on 18th September, 1998, in the aforesaid Chamber Summons, prayer clause (a) was for bringing the respondents as defendants on the record. This prayer was allowed. Thereafter the plaintiffs again took out draft Notice of Motion for an order and injunction against the defendants No.2 and 3. It was, however, pointed out by the Court that there is no relief claimed against the defendants No.2 and No.3 in the plaint and therefore, interim relief can also not be granted. The present Chamber Summons has been taken out for making the consequential amendments, in view of the fact that third party rights have been created.