Read Time: 07 minutes
The Court while granting an interim injunction in favor of the company, relied on the Apex Court's decision wherein it held that 'a vendor cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong in not complying with its obligations under the Agreement to Sell'.
A Bench of Justice Amit Bansal while granting interim injunction to G.G Constructions Pvt. Ltd., a construction company, prevented all persons acting in active concert or participation with the defendants from disposing of, transferring, selling, alienating, mortgaging, or handing over possession, and/or creating third party rights/interest in the suit property in dispute, until the suit is resolved.
The Delhi High Court was hearing an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking specific performance of the agreement to Sell dated 15th July, 2008. The specific performance was sought to restrain the defendants from creating third party rights in respect of 500 square feet of the ground floor and 2,000 square feet of the basement and the undivided share in a Plot.
In the pertinent matter, parties entered into an Agreement to Sell , where the total consideration was fixed at Rs.1,80,00,000. Out of the total amount, the petitioner even paid Rs.40, 00,000/- at the time of signing the agreement, and was ready to pay the next installment on the next fixed date. The Counsel for the plaintiff, Advocate, Lall Taksh Joshi argued, that with the subsequent developments at a later stage, the defendants took a long time in clearing the lien of the Punjab & Sind Bank. And therefore, the sale deed could not be executed earlier. While Senior Advocate Akshay Makhija and Advocate Harkirat Singh, the Counsel for the defendants argued that the Agreement to Sell, fails to identify the subject matter of the agreement. And the payment so made were towards an enhanced rent, under the Lease Agreements and Maintenance Agreements and not under the present Agreement to Sell.
It was further alleged by the defendant, that the plaintiff's complete silence since 2008, shows his 'readiness and willingness to perform' its obligation under the agreement.
The Court after hearing the arguments of the parties, noted that it was evident from the agreement to sell that there was an existing lien of the Punjab & Sind Bank on the suit property. Further, was of the opinion that it was on the defendants to remove the said lien of Punjab & Sind Bank and then execute the conveyance deed for the sale of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. It also took note note of the clarity between the parties in respect of the portions of the properties to be sold.
Therefore, it stated that "even if the plaintiff remained silent between 2008 and 2020, this cannot be interpreted as a lack of 'readiness or willingness' on his part and as the defendants agreed to remove the Punjab & Sind Bank lien on the suit property as a material condition of the Agreement to Sell, there can be no question of readiness or willingness while this condition is not met". And that there was nothing in the agreement to indicate that time was of the essence of the contract.
The Bench relied on Panchanan Dhara v. Monmatha Nath Maity (2006), wherein it held that "a vendor cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong in not complying with its obligations under the Agreement to Sell".
Holding that the "Balance of convenience requires that the suit property may be preserved. Irreparable loss and injury would be caused to the plaintiff, which cannot be compensated in monetary terms, if the suit property is alienated during the pendency of the suit", Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff
Case Title: G.G Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Bikramjit Singh & Ors.
Please Login or Register
