LexYUSUF KHAN @ DILIP KUMAR THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY versus PRAJITA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 687 YUSUF KHAN @ DILIP KUMAR THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY v. PRAJITA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER (Civil Appeal No.11093 of 2017) AUGUST 30, 2017 [J. CHELAMESWAR AND S; ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.I Specific Pe1formance : A B ·Grant of development rights of property in question - By c appellant vide agreement dated 23.6.2006 - Jointly to predecessor- in-interest of respondent No. 1 and to respondent No. 2 - As per terms of the agreement, if developers failed to complete the construction within stipulated period,the appellant was entitled to get the construction completed at the cost of developers and on developers' failure to deposit such cost, appellant was further D entitled to terminate the agreement -Application u/s. 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act by respondent No. 1 (for restraining the appellant from dispossessing respondent No. 1 and for restraining the appellant from creating third party right in the property) dismissed · upto Supreme Court - Application uls. 11 of Arbitration Act before E High Court withdrawn by respondent No. 1 with liberty to file a suit - In the meantime agreement dated 23.06.2006 terminated by the appellant - Suit by respondent No. I seeking specific performance of the agreement dismissed by High Court - On appeal, held: There is no justification for the demand of specific performance of the · agreement - In the ends of justice appellant is directed to deposit F an amount of Rs. 20 crores with the Supreme Court to be collected by respondent No. I - Respondent No. I is directed to hand-over the possession of the property to appellant - The question as to whether respondent No. I _was entitled to any damages over and above Rs. 20 crores to be resolved in arbitration proceedings - G Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - ss. 9 and II. Disposing of the appeal and miscellaneous application, the Court 687 H 688 A B c SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R. HELD: 1. There is no justification for the demand of respondent No. 1 for the specific performance of the agreement dated 23.6.2006. In the circumstances of the case, permitting the continuance of the suit for specific performance of the agreement which is more than a decade old against a person from whom respondent No. 1 secured the development rights of the property in dispute which ultimately would enable respondent No. 1 to 25 per cent of the monetary value of the development potential as against the right of the appellant who is entitled for 75 per cent of the monetary value of the development potential would be unjust. [Para 21) [697-D-EJ 2. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, .the ends of justice would be met in this case by directing that the appellant shall deposit an amount of Rs. 20 crores by demand draft to the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks from today and intimate the same to respondent No. 1. Upon the D receipt of such intimation, respondent No. 1 .shall withdraw all the security personnel deployed by it and hand over possession of the property in question within a period of seven days from the date of the receipt of the above-mentioned intimation to the appellant. [Para 201 [696-G-H; 697-AJ E F G 3. In the background of the facts and circumstances of the case whether respondent No. 1 would be entitled for any damages apart from receiving the above-mentioned amount of Rs. 20 crores from the appellant, is a matter which requires some examination. Therefore, the said question is rejected for resolution by arbitration between the appellant and respondent No. 1. The parties are directed to submit the above-mentioned dispute for arbitration in accordance with law. [Para 221 [697-E- FJ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.11093 of 2017. From the impugned Final Judgment and Order dated 25 .07.2016 and modified Judgment and Order dated 05.08.2016 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Arbitration Application No.292 of2015 WITH H M.A. No.629/2017 in S.L.P(C) Nos.7483-7484 of2016. YUSUF KHAN @ DILIP KUMAR THR. P.O.A. v. PRAJITA DEVELOPERS PVT.. LTD. & ANR Mukul Rohtagi, P. Chidambaram, Shyam Divan, Sr. Advs., Rahul Chitnis, Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Chirag Shah, Rana Sandeep Bussa, Aurupdas Gupta, Ms. Vandana Sehgal, Hardeep Singh Anand, Anand Daga, Muhammad Ali Khan, Gaurav Gupta, Divyam Agarwal, Akhil Bhardwaj, Omar Honda, Ms. Sakshi Kotiyal, Vikram Aditya Singh, Hardeep Singh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.