CALCUTTA CONSTRUCTION INVESTMENT CO Vs. SEKHAR CHAND LAW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been taken out by Calcutta Construction and Investment Company for an order for appointment of a Receiver to take possession of premises No. 50, Kailash Bose Street, Calcutta and also for an order of injunction restraining the defendant No 1, Shekar Chandra Law, his servants and/or agents or assigns from dealing with, disposing of, encumbering and/or letting out by way of lease or transferring in any manner the said premises No. 43, (sic) Kailash Bose Street, Calcutta.

(2.) The case of the petitioners shortly is that by a letter dated 13th of Nov. 1978 Shekhar Chandra Law wrote to his broker, B. C. Baid authorising him to lease out the said premises on the terms and conditions as contained in the said letter. According to the petitioner, the petitioner by a letter dated 15th of Nov. 1978 accepted the said offer and agreed to take lease of the said suit property on the terms and conditions as mentioned in the said letter. Pursuant to one of the terms, on 15th of Nov. 1978 the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by cheque with M/s. T. Banerjee and Company, Solicitor for Shekhar Chandra Law. Thereafter it is the petitioner's case that Mr. M. P. Jhunjhunwalla and Mr. S.K. Dabriwalla being the representatives of the petitioner met the Income-tax Officer the Defendant No. 1 and requested him to issue necessary challans so that the plaintiff may deposit a sum of Rs. 4,00,000.00 to the Income-tax Department as agreed under the said agreement. Thereafter by a letter dated 17th/20th of Nov. 1978 the Income-tax Department wrote to Shekhar Chandra Law threatening attachment in default of payment. It is the case of the petitioner that on 21st of November, 1978 the broker B. C. Baid intimated Manick Chandra Damani, the defendant No. 2, herein that the defendant, Shekhar Chandra Law has agreed to grant long term lease of the suit property in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter on 1st of Dec. 1973 the petitioner wrote a letter to M/s. T. Banerjee and company with a copy to defendant No. 1 requesting the defendant to perform his part of the agreement as agreed to by and between the parties and intimated that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform its part of the agreement. Thereafter on 4th of Dec. 1978 M/s. T. Banerjee and Company forwarded to the petitioner a copy of the letter dated 30th of Nov. 1978 written by Shekhar Chandra Law to M/s. T. Banerjee and Company cancelling the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1. Thereafter on 6th of Dec. 1978 this suit for specific performance was filed and on an ex parte application being moved on behalf of the petitioner an order of injunction was passed and the same was made returnable on 12th of Dec. 1978. On 12th of Dec. 1978 Mr. N. D. Roy, Barrister-at-law was appointed as Special Officer to inspect and make report with regard to the said property as on that day counsel for Shekhar Chandra Law submitted that on 24th of Nov. 1978 there was an agreement to grant lease of the said property by Shekhar Chandra Law in favour of Manick Chand Damani who has already paid a sum of Rs. 4,00,000.00 to the Income-tax Department and to whom the possession has been given as early as on 1st of Dec. 1978. It is the case of the petitioner that after such statement was made by Shekhar Chandra Law the petitioner took out an application on 1st of December, 1978 for addition of Manick Chand Damani as a party defendant and also for amendment of the plaint and the petition and on that day an order was made for maintenance of status quo.

(3.) The case of the petitioner before me is that the letters dated 13th of November and 15th of Nov. 1978 read together would constitute a valid and legal agreement; as such no subsequent purported agreement is binding on the petitioner. Moreover the person who has purported to take the suit property under the second subsequent agreement becomes a trustee and as such he would be holding the suit property for the benefit of the plaintiff.