Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Cs No. 131/12 M/S Splendor Landbase ... vs . Ms. Neeta Mehta on 4 May, 2012

CS No. 131/12                            M/S SPLENDOR LANDBASE LIMITED VS. MS. NEETA MEHTA


        IN THE COURT OF SHRI  J.P.S. MALIK :  ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
         JUDGE­04  : SOUTH DISTRICT  :   SAKET COURT COMPLEX   
                              NEW DELHI
                             CS. NO. 131/12 

IN THE MATTER OF :


           M/S SPLENDOR LANDBASE LIMITED                                  .....Plaintiffs


                              Versus

                MS. NEETA MEHTA                                           ....Defendant
                          



                                           Order

    1.

The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and injunction. Plaintiff is a Limited Company and was developing the projects named "Splendor Adharshila" in sector­19, Panipat. Defendant submitted an application dated 06.08.10 to the plaintiff company for an apartment in the project. It is stated that at the time of booking the apartment, defendant was aware that construction was yet to begin on the project. If was made clear to the defendant that in case final allotment is not made within a period of one year from the date of the application, and date is not extended by the plaintiff company, then application would lapse and cancelled and the money deposited by the defendant shall be refunded. Due to unforeseen circumstances, project could not be executed by the plaintiff company and the money deposited with the plaintiff company by the defendant had been refunded alongwith 9 % interest for full and final settlement. It appears defendant has initiated 1of3 CS No. 131/12 M/S SPLENDOR LANDBASE LIMITED VS. MS. NEETA MEHTA certain criminal proceedings, after lodging the complaint against the plaintiff company. The plaintiff company has filed a suit for declaration that application dated 06.08.10 be treated as cancelled, defendant having no right, title or interest in the said application/ said project of the plaintiff company. Further, prayer is made for restraining the defendant from taking any steps on the basis of a said application before any court and/ or authority.

2. Arguments were heard on behalf of the plaintiff as regards the maintainability of the suit.

3. As regards the jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts, on behalf of the plaintiff company, reliance was placed on a case decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. A. P. Agencies, Salem JT 1989 (2) SC 38, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that part of cause of action arises where money is expressly or impliedly payable as per the contract. In the present case, the money was payable at Delhi.

4. Primarily, it appears that motive for filing the present proceedings is to prevent the defendant from initiating criminal proceedings against the plaintiff company alleging fraud, misrepresentation etc. As per section 31 (1) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 a written instrument can be adjudged as void or voidable and ordered to be delivered up and cancelled by the court if that written instrument is void or voidable against any person, 2of3 CS No. 131/12 M/S SPLENDOR LANDBASE LIMITED VS. MS. NEETA MEHTA who is having reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left out standing, may cause him serious injury. An application given by the defendant to the plaintiff company for allotment of an apartment in the project of the plaintiff company creates no right as such, and cannot be prima facie be void or voidable merely because the money paid alongwith the application has been refunded except as an evidence of the circumstances in which booking of the apartment was made by the defendant. Application form as such, if left out standing is not capable of causing any serious injury to the plaintiff company, by itself.

5. U/s 41 (d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 no injunction can be granted to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceedings in a criminal matter and so, the suit filed by the plaintiff company is barred U/s 41 (d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the plaint filed is rejected U/o VII Rule 11 (d) CPC.

Announced in the open Court                                       (J.P.S. MALIK)
on 04.05.2012                                        ADJ­04  : SOUTH DISTRICT
All pages signed                                                NEW DELHI 




                                          3of3
 CS No. 131/12                          M/S SPLENDOR LANDBASE LIMITED VS. MS. NEETA MEHTA


CS. No.131/12

04.05.2012

Present:         None.

Vide separate order of the date, the plaint filed is rejected U/o VII Rule 11 (d) CPC .

File be consigned to record room.

(J.P.S. MALIK) ADJ­04 : SOUTH DISTRICT NEW DELHI : 04.05.2012 4of3