Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court heard six Notices of Motion arising from six civil suits concerning three parcels of land in Deonar, Mumbai. The owner, Chandrakant Mahimkar, entered into development agreements with Surendra Narvekar between 2003 and 2005, granting development rights over properties designated by CTS Nos. 91, 92, 330, 271, 764, 89, and 454/1-20 and 290. Narvekar subsequently entered into separate development agreements with Kukreja Construction Co., a partnership firm, in 2004 and 2005. Disputes arose when Narvekar terminated the agreements with Kukreja by notice dated 5 May 2011, alleging failure to pay full consideration and to hand over built-up area. Specifically, under the agreement of 10 September 2004 for CTS No. 454, the total consideration was Rs. 4.30 crores plus 11,500 sq. ft. built-up area free of cost; Rs. 2.05 crores was paid but Rs. 2.10 crores remained unpaid, and the built-up area and renovated temple were not handed over. Under the agreement of 11 February 2004 for CTS Nos. 91, 92, 330, full consideration of Rs. 25 lakhs was paid, but Narvekar alleged that Kukreja fraudulently applied for TDR/DRC without rights. Under the agreement of 5 August 2005 for CTS Nos. 271, 764, 89, consideration of Rs. 1,31,71,000 was largely paid, but a balance of Rs. 2,51,000 was tendered late and returned. Kukreja filed three suits for specific performance, impleading Mahimkar. During the pendency of these suits, Mahimkar terminated his agreements with Narvekar on 28 March 2014, citing breaches. Narvekar then filed three suits challenging that termination and seeking specific performance. While all six suits were pending, Mahimkar and Kukreja entered into consent terms agreeing to transfer the suit properties to Kukreja. Narvekar opposed the consent terms. On 6 February 2015, a Single Judge of the High Court accepted the consent terms and disposed of the three suits between Kukreja and Mahimkar with directions. Narvekar appealed to a Division Bench, which stayed the order. Kukreja then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which directed the High Court to dispose of the Notices of Motion finally in a time-bound manner. The case came before Justice S.C. Gupte, who examined the inter se rights between the parties. The court noted that the core issues were the validity of Narvekar's termination of the agreements with Kukreja and the validity of Mahimkar's termination of the agreements with Narvekar, as well as the impact of the consent terms. The judgment outlined the terms of the various development agreements and the payments made. The court's analysis and final decision are not fully captured in the available text, but the order records that the Notices of Motion were being disposed of after consideration of the factual background and the Supreme Court's directive.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of Kukreja Agreements by Narvekar was valid; whether the termination of Narvekar Agreements by Mahimkar was valid; whether the consent terms between Mahimkar and Kukreja should be upheld and their effect on Narvekar's rights.
Law Points
- specific performance of development agreements
- termination of contracts for breach
- consent terms during pending litigation
- inter se rights of parties to development agreements
- transfer of property during suit pendens
- power of court to accept consent terms
