Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Eastern Star Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against an order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji, which dismissed its application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The appellant claimed that the respondent, Sanjeev Dhingra, had agreed to sell a property in Goa and had received earnest money of Rs. 5 lakhs vide a receipt dated 30.09.2011. The appellant sought to restrain the respondent from alienating the property. The trial court dismissed the injunction application, holding that the receipt did not constitute an agreement to sell and that the appellant had suppressed material facts. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision. It held that the receipt was merely a preparatory document and did not contain essential terms of a contract. The appellant had also suppressed the fact of filing a suit in New Delhi and obtaining an ex parte injunction. The court found that the appellant's subsequent actions, such as issuing a public notice and executing a rectification deed, were inconsistent with the existence of a binding agreement. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Headnote
A) Contract Law - Agreement to Sell - Receipt as Preparatory Document - Receipt dated 30.09.2011 did not constitute an agreement to sell as it lacked essential terms such as description of property, consideration, and parties' obligations - Court held that a mere receipt of earnest money without a concluded contract cannot be the basis for specific performance or injunction (Paras 5-10). B) Civil Procedure - Injunction - Suppression of Material Facts - Appellant suppressed the fact of filing a suit in New Delhi and obtaining an ex parte ad interim injunction - Held that suppression of material facts disentitles a party to discretionary relief of injunction (Paras 11-15). C) Property Law - Sale Deed - Rectification Deed - Public Notice - Appellant's conduct in issuing public notice and rectification deed after the receipt indicated that no final agreement existed - Court held that the subsequent actions were inconsistent with the existence of an agreement to sell (Paras 16-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the receipt dated 30.09.2011 constituted an agreement to sell the property and whether the appellant was entitled to an injunction restraining the respondent from alienating the property.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs. Order of trial court upheld.
Law Points
- Receipt as preparatory document
- not agreement to sell
- Suppression of material facts
- Injunction principles
- Specific performance
