Case Note & Summary
The plaintiffs, Anand Agarwal and Pramila Anand Agarwal, filed a Commercial Suit No. 614 of 2017 before the Bombay High Court seeking specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 1st August 2016, allegedly executed by the defendant Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar (the applicant in the Notice of Motion) for the sale of a property at Prabhadevi, Mumbai. The plaintiffs also sought interim relief to restrain the defendants from dealing with the property. The defendant Gaokar filed Notice of Motion (L) No. 706 of 2017 seeking dismissal of the suit on grounds of suppression of material facts, forum shopping, and abuse of process. The court found that the plaintiffs had suppressed the fact that a prior suit (L.C. Suit No. 2442 of 2017) was already pending before the Bombay City Civil Court between the same parties and involving the same agreement for sale. The plaintiffs had obtained an ex parte ad interim order in the Civil Court on 28th June 2017, but later withdrew that suit on 7th July 2017 and filed the present commercial suit on 10th July 2017, without disclosing the earlier proceedings. The court held that this amounted to gross suppression of material facts and forum shopping. Additionally, the plaintiffs failed to comply with the mandatory pre-institution mediation requirement under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court dismissed the Notice of Motion, thereby dismissing the suit, and imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 5,00,000 on the plaintiffs, payable to the Bombay High Court Legal Services Committee. The court also directed that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Registrar General for appropriate action against the plaintiffs' advocate for facilitating the abuse of process.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Suppression of Facts - Abuse of Process - The court held that a litigant who suppresses material facts and makes false statements is not entitled to any relief, and such conduct must be dealt with by dismissal with exemplary costs. (Paras 1-3, 30-31) B) Specific Performance - Interim Relief - Forum Shopping - Where a prior suit for specific performance of the same agreement was pending before another court, the filing of a subsequent suit with identical prayers constitutes forum shopping and abuse of process, disentitling the plaintiff to any interim protection. (Paras 10-15, 28-29) C) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 12A - Mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation - The court noted that the suit was filed without complying with the mandatory pre-institution mediation requirement under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which is a further ground for dismissal. (Para 29)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant is entitled to interim relief in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale, given the suppression of material facts and the pendency of a prior suit involving the same property.
Final Decision
The Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), thereby dismissing the suit. The plaintiffs are directed to pay costs of Rs. 5,00,000 to the Bombay High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks. A copy of the judgment is to be forwarded to the Registrar General for appropriate action against the plaintiffs' advocate.
Law Points
- Suppression of material facts
- abuse of process of court
- forum shopping
- specific performance
- interim relief
- exemplary costs
- commercial suit
