Shaila Ulhas Kandalgaokar And 2 Ors vs Hemlata Gangadhar Khedekar And 3 Ors on 8 January, 2019

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Shaila Ulhas Kandalgaokar And 2 Ors vs Hemlata Gangadhar Khedekar And 3 Ors on 8 January, 2019

Bench: G.S. Patel

                                                                27-CHS1467-18.DOC




 Shephali



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
            ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1467 OF 2018
                                         IN
                               SUIT NO. 101 OF 2008


 Shaila Ulhas Kandalgaonkar & Ors                                      ...Plaintiffs
        Versus
 Hemlata Gangadhar Khedekar & Ors                                  ...Defendants


 An Advocate, i/b Vigil Juris, for the Plaintiffs/Applicants.
 Mr Sameer Khedekar, for Defendants Nos. 2 to 4.


                               CORAM:      G.S. PATEL, J
                               DATED:      8th January 2019
 PC:-


 1.

Issues were framed on 29th March 2010 in the suit for specific performance. The Defendants have filed this Chamber Summons, in my view quite unnecessarily, seeking an amendment of the issues. The schedule sets out the proposed issues.

2. I will permit the Chamber Summons to this extent: I will add the proposed issues (i), (ii) and (iii) but will not permit the deletion of any of the existing issues.

Page 1 of 3

8th January 2019 ::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 00:27:24 ::: 27-CHS1467-18.DOC

3. Issues as re-framed are for convenience appended to this order.

4. The Chamber Summons is disposed of in these terms. There will be no order as to costs.

(G. S. PATEL, J) Page 2 of 3 8th January 2019 ::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 00:27:24 ::: 27-CHS1467-18.DOC ISSUES FRAMED ON 3RD JANUARY 2019 SUIT NO.

1. Whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation?

2. Whether the Defendants are bound and liable to perform their obligations under Clause 2 and 18 of the MoU dated 1st January 2003?

3. Whether the MoU between the parties is a contingent contract which has become impossible of performance by the contingency?

4. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that there was a concluded agreement between the Plaintiffs and Defendants under the Memorandum of Understanding dated 1st January 2003?

5. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for the specific performance under clause 2 * 18 of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 1st January 2003 directing the Defendants to perform their obligation?

6. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that in alternative to the main prayer, the Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in sum of Rupees 5 crore as specified in the particulars of the Plaintiffs claim, annexed as Exhibit "J" to the plaint?

7. To what relief, if any, is the Plaintiffs entitled?

(G. S. PATEL, J.) Page 3 of 3 8th January 2019 ::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 00:27:24 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bombay High Court