Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arises from an interim order dated 28 January 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Interim Application (L) No. 196 of 2021 in Suit No. 22 of 2021. The Appellants, Preity Zinta, Neelprabha Zinta, and Dhanvantri Holdings Pvt. Ltd., were the original defendants in the suit. Respondent No. 1, Ace Housing and Construction Limited, was the original plaintif. The dispute pertains to a fat situated at 403, Parishram, Nergis Dutt Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai. The plaintif claimed that there was an agreement for sale of the fat in its favor and sought specifc performance of the agreement. The learned Single Judge granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from selling, transferring, or creating third-party rights in respect of the suit fat. Aggrieved by this order, the defendants fled the present appeal. The court examined the terms of the alleged agreement and found that it was not a concluded contract as it lacked certainty on vital terms such as the time for payment and possession. The court held that the plaintif had not made out a prima facie case for grant of injunction. The balance of convenience was in favor of the defendants, and the plaintif would not suffr irreparable loss if the injunction was refused. Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
Headnote
A) Specifc Performance - Interim Injunction - Prima Facie Case - The court considered whether the plaintif had made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction restraining sale of property - Held that the agreement for sale was not a concluded contract and the plaintif's claim for specifc performance was not maintainable, thus no prima facie case was made out (Paras 1-10).
B) Contract Law - Concluded Contract - Essential Terms - The court examined whether the agreement between the parties contained all essential terms to constitute a concluded contract - Held that the agreement lacked certainty on vital terms such as time for payment and possession, and therefore was not a concluded contract (Paras 11-15).
C) Injunction - Balance of Convenience - Irreparable Loss - The court assessed the balance of convenience and irreparable loss - Held that the balance of convenience was in favor of the Appellants and the plaintif would not suffr irreparable loss if injunction was refused (Paras 16-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge was justifed in granting an interim injunction restraining the Appellants from selling, transferring, or creating third-party rights in respect of the suit fat pending disposal of the suit.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 28 January 2021 is set aside. The Interim Application (L) No. 196 of 2021 fled by Respondent No. 1 stands dismissed.
Law Points
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable loss
- Specifc performance of contract
- Injunction
- Agreement for sale
- Concluded contract
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (03) 50
APPEAL (L) NO. 5022 OF 2021 IN INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 196 OF 2021 IN SUIT NO. 22 OF 2021
S.J. KATHAWALLA, VINAY JOSHI
Mr. Mustafa Doctor, Senior Advocate alongwith Mr. Gaurav Mehta instructed by Bachubhai Munim & Co. for the Appellants; Mr. Shanay Shah instructed by Ms. Sapana Rachure for Respondent No.1
Preity Zinta, Neelprabha Zinta, Dhanvantri Holdings Pvt. Ltd.
Ace Housing and Construction Limited, Quantum Park Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Standard Chartered Bank, Bhakti Vakil
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against interim injunction order in a suit for specifc performance of contract for sale of immovable property.
Remedy Sought
The Appellants sought setting aside of the interim injunction order restraining them from selling, transferring, or creating third-party rights in respect of the suit fat.
Filing Reason
The Appellants were aggrieved by the interim order dated 28 January 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge granting injunction in favor of the plaintif.
Previous Decisions
The learned Single Judge had granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from selling, transferring, or creating third-party rights in respect of the suit fat pending disposal of the suit.
Issues
Whether the plaintif had made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction?
Whether the agreement for sale was a concluded contract?
Whether the balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintif?
Submissions/Arguments
The Appellants argued that the agreement for sale was not a concluded contract as it lacked certainty on vital terms such as time for payment and possession.
The Respondent No. 1 argued that there was a valid agreement for sale and the plaintif was entitled to specifc performance and interim injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that for grant of interim injunction, the plaintif must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience in its favor, and that it would suffr irreparable loss if injunction is not granted. In the present case, the plaintif failed to establish a prima facie case as the agreement for sale was not a concluded contract. The balance of convenience was in favor of the defendants, and no irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintif.
Judgment Excerpts
The present Appeal arises from an Interim Order dated 28th January, 2021 (the Impugned Order) passed by the learned Single Judge in Interim Application (L) No. 196 of 2021 in Suit No.22 of 2021.
The court held that the agreement for sale was not a concluded contract and the plaintif's claim for specifc performance was not maintainable.
Procedural History
The plaintif fled Suit No. 22 of 2021 seeking specifc performance of an agreement for sale of a fat. The plaintif also fled Interim Application (L) No. 196 of 2021 seeking interim injunction restraining the defendants from selling or transferring the fat. The learned Single Judge allowed the interim application and granted injunction on 28 January 2021. The defendants fled the present appeal against that order.
