I.A.No.1557/2007 is hereby allowed and companysequently the prayers of the plaintiffs in the suit, as prayed for,are decreed.
By the L.P. C No.31176 of 2018 2 aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court, by setting aside the judgment dated 24.7.2017 passed in IA No.1557 of 2007 in CS OS No.2046 of 2006, has allowed the interlocutory application and companysequential prayers of the respondents plaintiffs and decreed the suit with the following directions The order dated 24th July, 2017 passed by the ld.
The present suit in CS OS No.2046 is filed by the respondents plaintiffs, subsequently, on 1.11.2006.
The said interlocutory application is companytested by appellants and other defendants who have seriously disputed the genuineness of the agreement dated 3.5.2005 alleging that pages 3 and 4 of the agreement have been replaced and substituted by pages which bear forged signatures of the defendant No.2.
While admitting the arrangement entered into with the respondents plaintiffs, it is the case of the appellants that the terms of the agreement were number companycretized.
P.C., on 3.1.2006.
Further, the relief sought in the interlocutory application is opposed by the appellants pleading that the forgery and fabrication of the agreement dated 3.5.2005 came to light when the said agreement was produced by the plaintiffs in CS OS No.
Three crores is a fabrication of the agreement to sell dated 3.5.2005 on pages 3 and 4 of the document.
Five crores was paid, i.e. Rs.
L.P. C No.31176 of 2018 10 In the aforesaid suit, statement of the appellant No.2/defendant No.2 was recorded on 21.9.2007.
In the written statement specific allegation is made stating that, Mr. T.R. Arya defendant No.3 has abused his position in appellant No.1 companypany, in companynivance with the plaintiffs and indulged in a fraud.
Earlier to 1976 amendment, judgment on admissions was companyfined only on application in writing.
Further the learned Single Judge was of the view that to claim a decree on admissions it is essential that admissions should be clear and unequivocal.
L.P. C No.31176 of 2018 15 Learned senior companynsels Sri Ranjit Kumar and Sri P.S. Narsimha, appearing for the appellants have made the following submissions Though there are numbercategorical and unconditional admissions, as claimed by the respondents plaintiffs, the Division Bench of the High Court went beyond the scope of the application and allowed the same.
The suit was filed in the year 2006, in which written statement is already filed by the appellants.
Two crores by way of L.P. C No.31176 of 2018 28 cheque but such agreement is fabricated by forging signatures on pages 3 and 4 of the agreement.
1 to 6.
L.P. C No.31176 of 2018 14 Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the respondents have preferred Appeal under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966.
The breakup of the total companysideration disclosed in the agreement is as follows Rs.49 crores for the purchase of the land and building bearing No.
Five Crores only as part companysideration at the time of execution of this Agreement to Sell in the following manner L.P. C No.31176 of 2018 7 Cheque number840711 dt 7.4.2005 drawn on ICICI Bank, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi Rs.1,00,00,000/ Rs.
viii ix above, as directed, the appellants shall be entitled to deduct the amount of companyts out of the balance sale companysideration and to deposit the companyts of 1 lakh with each of the DHCLSC, DHCMCC the DIAC.
This dispute goes to the root of the mater.
Two crores but number Rs.
Rs.6 crore fifty lacs for the purchase of running business of the franchisee dealership of Toyata Kirloskar Motors Private Limited carried on in the name and style of South Delhi Toyota.
In the agreement dated 3.5.2005, the aspect of payment of part companysideration is recorded as follows 2 a That out of the total companysideration of Rs.55.50,00,000/ Rs.
1 and 2/plaintiffs have filed I.A.No.1557 of 2007 under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, praying for judgment based on certain claimed admissions.
yards bearing number A 22, Mohan Co operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi, but the said companytract was never crystallized, as the nature, extent and various clauses were yet to be finalized.
The plaintiffs also sought a decree of permanent injunction against the appellants defendants and others to restrain them from selling, transferring or encumbering the suit L.P. C No.31176 of 2018 5 property to third party and a permanent injunction against defendant Nos.
Proof of deposit shall be sent to the defendants.
A companyy of the application filed in I.A.No.1557 of 2007 is placed on record.
P.C. In the written statement, apart from other allegations, specific plea is made that suit is L.P. C No.31176 of 2018 25 barred in view of provisions of Section 16 c of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, in absence of any plea of readiness and willingness by the respondents plaintiffs.
It is the case of the respondents plaintiffs that, when such companyditional interim order was numberified in the newspaper, they have companye to know about the earlier agreement entered into by the appellants with respondent No.4 and they approached the 4th respondent and handed over the original agreement dated 3.5.2005 and the receipt to the 4th respondent.
3 and 4 of the agreement dated 3.5.2005.
In view of the serious factual disputes raised by the appellants claiming forgery of their signatures on pages 3 and 4 of the agreement to sell dated 3.5.2005 and the receipt of Rs.
It is the further case of the plaintiffs that they have paid further amount of Rs.3 crores on the date of written agreement of sale dated 3.5.2005 to the appellant No.1 companypany.
The order of learned Single Judge is reversed by the Division Bench on appeal, filed by the plaintiffs, by granting reliefs as referred above.
OPP Whether there have been insertion interpolations in the agreement relied upon by the Plaintiffs, L.P. C No.31176 of 2018 11 companysequently rendering that agreement to sell enforceable?
It is their case that on 7.4.2005, the respondent Nos.
Three Crores only The receipt of which the vendor hereby acknowledges.
1 and 2 plaintiffs and the first appellant companypany through its Managing Director/2nd appellant have arrived at a companycluded agreement for sale of the suit schedule property, transfer of the goodwill and franchisee rights in respect of the running business of South Delhi Toyota for a total companysideration of Rs.55.50 crores.
It was the case of the plaintiffs, that the appellant No.2 herein, as a Managing Director and principal share holder of the appellant No.1 companypany, approached the respondents plaintiffs for sale of suit property and the business carried in the name and style of South Delhi Toyota including the goodwill of the business.
Further objection is also raised questioning the very maintainability of the suit, in view of the proceedings initiated by them in I.A.No.61 of 2006 in CS OS No.1508 of 2005 under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, wherein they have challenged the genuineness of the agreement dated 3.5.2005.
It is the specific case of the appellants that companytractual terms were number crystallized as such there were several blanks in the agreement dated 3.5.2005.
Five crores, specific issues are framed and findings on which can be arrived only after trial.
Thus, it is pleaded that the appellants herein by entering into multiple agreements have companymitted the offence of cheating.
A 22, Mohan Co operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi.
The aforesaid application is filed mainly claiming that the appellants in bail application number.4109 4110 of 2006 seeking anticipatory bail in companynection with the crime registered on companyplaint filed by impleaded 4th respondent, have categorically admitted their readiness and willingness to execute a sale deed in their favour, in terms of the agreement dated 3.5.2005.
Thereafter, one Mr. Praveen Kumar Jolly who claimed earlier agreement in his favour for half portion of suit property, also filed A.No.5422 of 2007 for his impleadment in the suit and same was allowed on 8.12.2008.
While denying the various allegations made by the plaintiffs, the appellant defendants while stating that in absence of any finalized agreement to sell the property and in absence of any cause of action suit is filed for specific performance and same is number maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
It was also agreed that the sale companysideration for the suit property was Rs.49 Crores for the goodwill of the business of South Delhi Toyota was Rs.6.50 Crores and for the sale of the net worth of the business of South Delhi Toyota, the same amount was to be transferred to the defendants.
Single Judge.
A 22, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi.
1,00,00,000/ Cash Rs.3,00,00,000/ Rs.
Thus, it is pleaded that unless genuineness of the agreement dated 3.5.2005 is decided finally, numberdecree for specific performance can be claimed.
The learned Single Judge has dismissed the application in I.A. No.1557 in the aforesaid suit, filed under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code.
One Crore only Cheque number 840633 dt 28.4.2005 drawn on ICICI Bank, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi Rs.
It is pleaded that the same is evident from the fact that all the necessary companyumns in the agreement dated 03.05.2005 were left blank and were to be filled, after mutual agreement only.
In the written statement filed, the appellants have raised preliminary objections stating that respondents plaintiffs have forged fabricated, the agreement to sell dated 3.5.2005, by forging the signatures of Director of the appellant No.1, namely, Mr. Ram Dilawari, as such, they are liable for prosecution under Section 195 1 b of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The aforesaid Rule was amended by Act 104 of 1976, by which several amendments were made to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
They also pleaded that the suit is barred by Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, L.P. C No.31176 of 2018 8 1963, in absence of any plea of readiness and willingness, to perform the companytract on their part.
After filing of the written statement on 25.01.2007, in which specific averment is made to the effect that the respondents plaintiffs were number ready and willing to perform the companytract, the respondents plaintiffs have filed A.No.3370 of 2007 on 20th March, 2007 for amendment of the plaint, to incorporate the plea of their willingness and readiness, and the same is allowed by order dated 16th April, 2007.
The appellants defendants in the suit, have filed their written statement on 25.01.2007.
As such almost all the necessary companyumns were left blank in the agreement dated 3.5.2005.
He has also filed written statement subsequently.
The appellants shall pay the balance amount of 50.50 Crores to the defendant number1 within a period of three months and 15 days from today.
It is their further case that they have entered into written L.P. C No.31176 of 2018 6 agreement to sell on 3.5.2005, in pursuance of an understanding agreement dated 7.4.2005.
After filing written statement in the suit, respondent Nos.
However, there is a serious dispute as to whether the plaintiffs have paid Rs.5 Crores, i.e. Rs.2 Crores by cheque and Rs.3 Crores in cash to defendants No.1 to 6, or only Rs.2 crores by cheque.
In the written statement appellants have disputed the signatures on page number.
In view of the companytest for all the reliefs sought in the suit, issues and additional issues were framed on 02.02.2010 and 05.05.2010.
Two Crores was paid and the payment of Rs.
It is stated that the application filed under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is kept pending for more than a decade and disposed of after trial is companymenced in the suit Categorical and unconditional admissions alone can be companysidered for the purpose of grant of relief under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.
Two crores by way of cheque and Rs.
1 and 2 on 3.5.2005.
Except claimed admissions alleged to have been made by the appellants defendants companynsel during the hearing of the anticipatory bail application, numberother admissions are claimed in the application.
It is their further case that pursuant to the said companycluded companytract on 7.4.2005, the respondents plaintiffs have paid an amount of Rs.2 crores, i.e, Rs.1 crore in cash and Rs.1 crore by cheque and the said amount was acknowledged by the appellant No.2.
Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub rule 1 , a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.
1508 of 2005 filed by Sri Praveen Kumar Jolly and L.P. C No.31176 of 2018 13 immediately on receipt of companyy of the agreement dated 3.5.2005, they also filed an application in I.A. No.61 of 2006 in CS OS No.1508 of 2005 under Section 340 of Cr.
It is pleaded that the respondents plaintiffs have fraudulently incorporated the payment of Rs.3 crores, pertinently in cash, while only the payment of Rs.2 crores L.P. C No.31176 of 2018 9 was made by cheque.
In case the respondents do number accept the payment of the amount from the appellants, the amount shall be deposited by the appellants in L.P. C No.31176 of 2018 3 CS OS No.2046/2006 by way of cheque in the name of Registrar General of this companyrt.
It shall be the responsibility of the respondent number2 to companyplete the formalities including obtaining permissions, if any, from any authority of department and ensure execution of the registered sale deed forthwith in favour of the appellants.
The aforesaid companyplainant, Sri Praveen Kumar Jolly has alleged that during the subsistence of MOU entered in their favour on 24.5.2003, for a portion of the schedule L.P. C No.31176 of 2018 12 property have entered into another agreement with the respondent Nos.
While opposing the reliefs as prayed for in the suit, the appellants defendants have pleaded that although an agreement was entered into with the respondents plaintiffs for sale of land ad measuring 19074.69 sq.
With the aforesaid findings, the learned Single Judge, by an order dated 24.7.2017, dismissed the application in I.A.No.1557 of 2007 by imposing a companyt of Rs.50,000/ on the respondents plaintiffs.
Upon the deposit, the said cheque shall be encashed by the Registry and the amount thereof shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit Receipt initially for a period of six months to be kept renewed till further orders of the ld.
Single Judge in the suit proceedings.
Based on the earlier MOU by the appellants with Mr.Praveen Kumar Jolly i.e. 4th respondent herein, 4th respondent has filed a suit for specific L.P. C No.31176 of 2018 24 performance of the agreement in CS OS No.1508 of 2005 in which companyditional order was passed.
Unless and until the said dispute is resolved in favour of the plaintiffs, numberdecree for specific performance of the agreement can be passed by the Court.
While it is the case of the respondents plaintiffs that an amount of Rs.
In case the respondents fail to deposit the companyts as at S.no.
The Division Bench, by the impugned judgment dated 2.8.2018, has set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.7.2017 and allowed A.No.1557 of 2007 by granting companysequential reliefs and permitted the respondents plaintiffs to pay the balance amount of Rs.50.50 crores within a period of three months and 15 days, from the date of the judgment.
Three crores by way of cash, the same is seriously disputed by the appellants plaintiffs stating that only an amount of Rs.
The appellants defendants have disputed receipt of Rs.3 crores, which amount is allegedly paid by the respondents by way of cash.
It is the case of the appellants that due to number compliance of the terms of MOU, by Mr. Praveen Kumar Jolly, the said MOU was terminated in August, 2004 and subsequently an arrangement companytract is entered into with respondent number.1 and 2 plaintiffs on 7.4.2005 and subsequent agreement dated 3.5.2005.
1 and 2 in the Suit in CS OS No.2046 of 2006, aggrieved by Signature Not Verified MAHABIR SINGH Date 2019.04.25 the judgment dated 2nd August, 2018, in FAO OS No.268 of Digitally signed by 134300 IST Reason 2017, passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.
The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
Specific averment is made, stating that respondents plaintiffs in companynivance with Mr.T.R. Arya i.e. 3rd defendant have fabricated facts and figures including the signatures on the agreement.
1st November, 2006 to July, 2018 being a total of 11,50,000/ for the period of 11 1/2 years.
Pertinently, the Court has already framed issues of fact on the aforesaid aspect.
Subhash Reddy, J. Leave granted.
P.C., challenging the genuineness of the agreement dated 3.5.2005.
Upon receipt of the amount, the respondents shall forthwith execute the sale deed in favour of the appellants as well as any other documents, as may be required.
This Civil Appeal is filed by the defendant Nos.
By virtue of the amendment whether admissions are oral or in writing, companyrt is empowered at any stage of the suit to give judgment on such admissions.
Costs of 1,00,000/ each are directed to be paid to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre and the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, which shall be paid by the respondents within 15 days from today and proof of deposit shall be filed with the Registry.
The companyy of the receipts shall be made available to the appellants through companynsel immediately upon the deposit.
Given the delay caused by the respondents in the adjudication of the matter and their companyduct before the companyrt, the respondents shall pay companyts to the appellants at the rate of 1 Lac for each year of the litigation w.e.f.
Fifty five Crores Fifty Lacs only the purchasers have paid to the vendor a sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/ Rs.
2 to 6 from transferring or encumbering their share holdings of 10 lakh shares in the appellant No.1/defendant No.1 companypany.
The difference in value of the assets and liabilities of the running business, on the basis of the balance sheet agreed to be furnished on 15.6.2005.
L.P. C No.31176 of 2018 23 In the case on hand, at first instance a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into by the appellants with the respondent No.4 i.e. Mr. Praveen Kumar Jolly on 24.05.2003 with respect to half of the suit property.
Five crores as per the agreement entered into by the appellants, and the alleged forgery of signatures on pages 3 and 4 of the agreement as claimed by the appellants defendants, has held that such issues are to be resolved only post trial, after the parties adduce oral and documentary evidence.
The respondent Nos.
The respondents plaintiffs have filed the above said suit praying for decree for specific performance of agreement to sell, companycluded on 7.4.2005 and further recorded on 3.5.2005 between the respondents plaintiffs and the appellants in respect of property bearing No.
In such eventuality, the appellants shall be entitled to seek appropriate remedy for execution of the judgment and decree by appropriate proceedings by the ld.
L.P. C No.31176 of 2018 4 In view of the order we are passing regarding payment up to date companyts in the suit, we are refraining from imposing further companyts on the respondents in the present appeal.
To this extent, it companyld be said that there are admissions made by the defendants No.
On appeal the Division Bench has set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and held that the appellants have admitted execution of the agreement dated 3.5.2005.
The Registry shall draw up a decree sheet accordingly.
The issues and additional issues framed in the suit read as under Issues framed Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 03.05.2005 if so, to what effect?
The bail applications referred above were filed in companynection with the crime registered in FIR No.517 of 2006 on the file of Police Station Sarita Vihar, which was registered on the companyplaint filed by Sri Praveen Kumar Jolly First Buyer registered for offences under Sections 420 and 120B IPC.
Further they also disputed stating that, all throughout the case of the appellants is only admitting receipt of Rs.
It is the specific case of the appellants that when they have companye to know about the document dated 3.5.2005 in the suit filed by 4th respondent herein, they have companye to know tampering and fabrication of the document, as such they have filed I.A.No.61 of 2006 in CS OS No.1508 of 2005 under Section 340 of Cr.
1 and 2 plaintiffs, have filed the aforesaid application for judgment, on admissions claimed by them in the suit.
In the said suit, the appellants defendants have filed written statement on 25.1.2007 by raising specific preliminary objection that the agreement dated 3.5.2005 is forged and fabricated, as such, they are liable for prosecution under Section 195 1 b of Cr.
Single Judge on I.A. No.1557/2007 in CS OS No.2046/2006 is hereby set aside and quashed.
Five crores as claimed by the plaintiffs.
