PRATIMA BANSAL Vs. MAHESH KARNANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE will be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the petition.

(2.) THIS appeal and the application for stay are being disposed of today, treating them as on day's list since the parties have agreed that the appeal and the application for stay be disposed of together.

(3.) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 to 3 admittedly are the owners and promoters of the property situated at 52A, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta. They have constructed a multi-storeyed building on this piece of land. This building has several residential flats. Appellants, nine in number, entered into separate agreements with respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for purchase of the flats for varying amounts which are indicated in para 2 of the stay application. The dates of agreement, the description of the flats and the amounts indicating the purchase money have all been clearly mentioned in para 2 of the application. These facts are not disputed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 do not also controvert the fact the appellants entered into agreement with them for purchase of these flats and the amounts mentioned in the appelication have been in fact paid by the appellants to respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Along with the stay application the appellants have also filed a statement (Annexure-B) which also contains all the details regarding the particulars of the flats, the dates of execution of the agreements, the amounts due as per the agreements, the amounts actually paid and the balance outstanding, if any. We have seen the statement and find that all the 9 appellants have paid considerable and substantial amounts, in almost all the cases to the tune of 80 to 90% of the agreed sale price of the flats (as per the agreement) and indeed very small percentage thereof remains unpaid. For example, just to illustrate two sample cases, appellant No. 1 Mrs. Pratima Bansal has paid as amount of Rs. 2,62,000/- as against the agreed amount of Rs. 2,98,000/- and the appellant No. 2 Anand Swarup Misra has paid Rs. 2,74,056/- as against the agreed amount of Rs. 2,98,800/-. These facts are also undisputed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3. In fact in the affidavit-in-opposition filed to the stay application on behalf of the respondent No.s 1 to 3, they have annexed a consolidated Statement of Claims which they have indicated the details of their claims against the appellants. In this statements they do not dispute the aforesaid facts regarding the payment of the amounts by the appellants to them nor do they deny receipt of such payments.