SHARMA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. Vs. ASHISH RAJINDER KAPILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Notice of Motion Nos.21 of 2012 and 1784 of 2015 are filed by the Plaintiff seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The Notice of Motion No.604 of 2017 is taken out by the Defendant for the following reliefs :

(3.) The Defendant is the owner of the suit premises. The suit premises were mortgaged to the Citibank N.A., Andheri to secure the loan availed by Kapila Knit Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. The Defendant is the director of the said Company. It is alleged by the Plaintiff that the Defendant had approached him with a proposal of sale of the suit premises. The Defendant furnished to the Plaintiff a letter dated 25/9/2009 whereby the Citibank had informed the Defendant that the loan account would be closed against full and final settlement of Rs.1,04,00,000/- which was secured against the suit premises. Pursuant to negotiations, the Plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit premises for total consideration of Rs.1,04,00,000/-. The Defendant as a Director of Kapila Knit Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. informed the CitiBank that the loan of Rs.1,04,00,000/- would be cleared by the Plaintiff through RTGS. Accordingly, the Plaintiff made the payment of Rs.1,04,00,000/- to the CitiBank. Pursuant to the payment made, the CitiBank handed over the title documents in respect of the suit premises. The Defendant represented to the Plaintiff that he has a clear marketable title and full power and absolute authority to deal with the suit property. The Defendant and Plaintiff thereafter entered into an agreement for sale dated 03/10/2009 whereby the Defendant agreed to sell to the Plaintiff the suit premises for Rs.1,04,00,000/-. The Defendant agreed to vacate the suit premises and hand over actual possession of the suit premises by 31/12/2009 and further to register the sale deed on 20/01/2010. The grievance of the Plaintiff is that having induced him to pay the amount of Rs. 1,04,00,000/- to the Citibank, the Defendant avoided executing the sale deed and handing over of the vacant possession of the suit premises. The Plaintiff therefore lodged a criminal complaint and also instituted a suit for specific performance of the contract and other consequential reliefs.