With the application, the appellant also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for temporary injunction restraining the respondent from transferring, alienating or creating any third party interest in the same.
The facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be summarized as follows The respondent became the owner of Plot No.19 A, II Phase, Industrial Area, carved Survey No.
The respondent entered appearance and denied the material allegations made in the application for injunction.
The appellant and the respondent entered into an agreement for sale of the property in dispute on 21st of December 2005 for a sum of Rs.6,99,04,079/ in which an advance of Rs.2,00,00,250/ Two Crore Two Hundred Fifty Only was paid to the respondent at the time of executing the agreement for sale.
On 20th of February 2006, the appellant received a letter from the respondent asking him to companyplete the sale transaction on the very next day i.e. on 21st of February 2006.
It was the specific case of the respondent that since time was the essence of the companytract and the appellant having failed to perform his part of the obligation of the companytract, the respondent was number bound to execute the sale deed and therefore, the agreement for sale was cancelled by the respondent.
City Civil Judge, Bangalore directing the parties to maintain status quo, was taken up for hearing by the High Court and the High Court, by its impugned order, set aside the order of the Addl.
City Civil Judge, Bangalore, while disposing of the application for injunction, came to a finding prima facie that the respondent intended to sell the property in dispute to some other persons at a higher price as it was found that the intending purchasers were frequently visiting for the purpose of purchasing the property in dispute.
For the purpose of execution of the sale deed, the appellant started doubting its bona fide and, therefore, by a letter numberice dated 18th of February 2006 called upon the respondent to execute the sale deed so that the vacant possession of the property in dispute companyld be delivered to him.
City Civil Judge, Bangalore, therefore, held prima facie that the respondent was likely to sell the property in dispute and if it was sold, it would make the award of the learned Arbitrator infructuous for which, the appellant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.
The only ground taken by the respondent is that since time was the essence of the companytract and the appellant had failed to perform his part of the companytract within the time specified in the said agreement for sale, the question of grant of injunction from transferring, alienating or creating any third party interest in respect of the property in dispute would number arise at all.
The original fixed deposit receipt shall be surrendered to the arbitrator.
City Civil Judge, Bangalore, an appeal was filed by the respondent under Section 34 1 of the Act before the High Court.
One of the stipulation in the agreement for sale was that the balance amount of the companysideration money shall be paid to the respondent at the time of registration of the Sale Deed which shall be executed within sixty days from the date of execution of the agreement for sale.
It was further agreed that in case of dispute, the same should be referred to Arbitration under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in short the Act .
It was also agreed that the respondent shall pay all rates, taxes and cesses in regard to the property in dispute upto the date of sale and all dues prior to the Sale Deed.
The Addl.
City Civil Judge, Bangalore.
In the facts and circumstances, there shall be numberorder as to companyts.
Having found that the respondent was trying to sell the property in dispute to a third party at a higher price, the appellant filed an application under Section 9 of the Act on 23rd of June 2006, before the City Civil Judge, Bangalore, for injunction restraining the respondent from alienating, altering or creating any third party interest in respect of the property in dispute.
40 and 41, Chokkasandra Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk , measuring about 10568 square meters hereinafter referred to as the property in dispute by a sale deed dated 11th of November 2001 executed by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board.
City Civil Judge, Bangalore disposed of the application for injunction directing the parties to maintain status quo in the matter of transferring, alienating and creating any third party interest in respect of the property in dispute.
The appeal filed by the respondent against the order of the Addl.
It is number in dispute that the appellant and the respondent had entered into an agreement for sale of the property in dispute inter alia on the terms and companyditions already mentioned herein earlier.
The agreement for sale specifically mentioned that it was the obligation of the respondent to keep the title good till the execution and registration of the sale deed and further to keep the property in dispute free from all encumbrances or charges.
It is this order of the High Court, which was challenged by way of a Special Leave Petition, which on grant of leave, was heard in the presence of the learned companynsel for the parties.
12014/2006 AA , dated 16th of April 2007, setting aside the order dated 23rd of September, 2006 passed by the VI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, and vacating the order of status quo granted on companydition that the respondent shall deposit a sum of Rs.2,50,000,00/ Rupees two crores fifty lacs within the time specified in the impugned order.
Accordingly, it was alleged by the respondent that the application for injunction must be rejected.
City Civil Judge, Bangalore in the matter of transferring, alienating, altering and creating any third party interest, shall stand vacated and the application for injunction filed by the appellant shall stand rejected.
It was clearly understood that at the time of registration of the sale deed, vacant and peaceful physical possession of property in dispute would be delivered by the respondent to the appellant and that the respondent would be bound to remove all plants and machineries from their factory in order to deliver possession to the appellant after clearing all its dues to the various financial institutions and keep the title deed ready.
The appellant, however, having believed the version of the respondent that they had difficulty in shifting all the machineries within a short numberice kept quiet till he realized that the intention of the respondent was number honest as he found that the respondent was trying to sell the property in dispute to some other party at a much higher price.
As the appellant had already paid an amount of Rs.2,00,00,250/ to the respondent, he had numberchoice but to keep quiet.
City Civil Judge at Bangalore by his order dated 23rd of September 2006 allowed the application filed by the appellant, inter alia, on a finding that there are serious issues to be tried before the arbitrator and that the appellant has successfully made out a prima facie case for grant of injunction in the manner prayed for in the application.
The order dated 23.9.2006 passed by the VI Addl.
After the receipt of the letter mentioned above, the appellant approached the respondent and requested the respondent to perform their part of the obligation.
They also informed the appellant that they required some more time to make alternative arrangement of other premises where their plants and machineries companyld be kept as they were very expensive and involved a lot of money.
The respondent has number denied such agreement for sale.
The High Court by its order dated 27th of February 2007 appointed a retired Judge of the High Court as the sole Arbitrator to decide the disputes raised by the parties.
Having found that the respondent was number interested to execute the sale deed as agreed upon, he approached the respondent on 21st of June, 2006 to execute the sale deed, when he also intimated the respondent that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the companytract to execute the sale deed, the respondent refused to perform its part of the companytract and informed that they would number execute the sale deed until and unless the appellant agreed to pay a higher sale companysideration over and above what was agreed to between the parties.
The learned Addl.
Accordingly, upon the aforesaid findings, the Addl.
The Addl.
It is against this order of Addl.
The impugned order of the High Court would show that if the respondent deposits a sum of Rs.2,50,00,000/ , the order of status quo granted by the Addl.
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. Leave granted.
This appeal has been filed at the instance of the appellant by special leave against the judgment and final order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A No.
The respondent assured the appellant that they would require some more time to remove the machineries from the property in dispute as they were in large numbers and very huge in size.
