SUSHIL KUMAR KAJARIA Vs. GUL TARA CHAND KRIPALANI
LAWS(CAL)-1996-2-22
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on February 22,1996

SUSHIL KUMAR KAJARIA Appellant
VERSUS
GUL TARA CHAND KRIPALANI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

GOSTO BEHARI SARKAR V. SUR'S ESTATE LTD. [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMADBHAT SK. MOHSINBHOY AND ORS. V. TRUSTEES FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF CALCUTTA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
DURGA PERIOD VS. DEEP CHAND [REFERRED TO]
NEW REDBANK TEA CO PVT LIMITED VS. KUMKUM MITTAL [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR SINGH VS. SHIVNATH MISHRA ALIAS GADASAGURU [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)In the suit the plaintiff, Sushil Kumar Kajaria, seeks a declaration that an agreement for sale as recorded in the corrected Memorandum of Understanding is valid and binding. The plaintiff then seeks specific performance of the said agreement and other consequential reliefs. The plaintiff has contended that it was agreed between the parties that the defendent would sell and the plaintiff would purchase F.A.R. measuring an area of 15,000 sq. ft. approximately as per Calcutta Municipal Corporation Rules of Premises No. 73, Dr. Meghnath Saha Sarani, Calcutta, on the terms and conditions recorded in the subject Memorandum of Understanding corrected by Mr. P. Bhalodia, an advocate attached with M/s Khaitan & Co. a firm of Solicitors, who was engaged by the defendant for finalisation of the said agreement.
(2.)In this application the plaintiff has sought addition of Rightex Commerce Pvt. Ltd. as a party defendant to the suit. The plaintiff has contended that in an affidavit made by the defendant No. l on behalf of the defendants in opposition to the interlocutory application made by the plaintiff, the defendants disclosed that they have entered into an agreement with Rightex Commerce Pvt. Ltd. and after taking inspection of the original of the said agreement and obtaining a xerox copy thereof, persuant to the order of this Court, the plaintiff has been advised that for the purpose of determination of the rule questions in controversy between the parties presence of Rightex Commerce Pvt. Ltd. is necessary in order to afford complete relief to the plaintiff.
(3.)On the pleadings, as contained In the plaint, wherein proposed amendments have been shown, it appears, that the plaintiff has contended that this agreement is dated 7th March, 1995; whereas the agreement of Rightex Commerce Pvt. Ltd. is dated 28th March, 1995.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.