Bombay High Court
Veena Realcon Pvt Ltd(Formerly Known As ... vs Sahakar Nagar Shri Gurukrupa ... on 19 December, 2018
Author: K.R.Shriram
Bench: K.R.Shriram
1/3 55.SUIT194.17.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT NO.194 OF 2017
Veena Realcon Pvt. Ltd. )....Plaintiff
V/s.
Sahakar Nagar Shri Gurukrupa CHSL & Ors.)....Defendants
----
Ms.Haseen Khan I/by Reena Salunkhe for plaintiff. Mr.Omar Khaiyam Shaikh for defendant no.1. Mr.Chinmaya A.Acharya for defendant nos.3 to 5. Mr.Sumit S.Phatale for defendant nos.6 to 8.
----
CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J DATE : 19.12.2018 P.C.:-
1. Heard the counsel. The following issues arise in the matter.
ISSUES (1) Whether Plaintiff proves that the termination notice dated 31.5.2016 is illegal, bad in law and non-est and is not binding upon Plaintiffs?
(2) Whether Plaintiff proves that, Plaintiff is ready and willing to perform their part of obligations and is still ready and willing to comply with their obligations under the said Memorandum of Understanding dated 03.07.2013?
(3) Whether Plaintiff is entitled for grant of specific performance against Defendant no.1 and 2 in respect of development rights granted in favor of Plaintiff by Defendant nos. 1 and 2 along with other Defendants no.3 to 8 as recorded in Memorandum of Understanding dated 03.07.2013?
(4) Whether Defendant no.1 and 2 prove that Plaintiff violated clause 5.8 of the Memorandum of KJ ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 21:31:25 ::: 2/3 55.SUIT194.17.doc Understanding dated 03.07.2013?
(5) Whether Defendant no.1 and 2 prove that there is no privity of contract with plaintiff and the Memorandum of Understanding dated 03.07.2013 is not binding upon Defendant nos.1 & 2?
(6) Whether Defendant nos.1 and 2 prove that Plaintiff has failed to perform their obligations under the said Memorandum of Understanding dated 03.07.2013?
(7) Whether Defendant nos. 1 and 2 prove that Plaintiff and their Project Management Consultant viz. M/s Ellora Project Consultant have played fraud upon Defendant nos.1 and 2?
(8) Whether Defendant nos. 1 and 2 prove that Plaintiff has violated the terms of the contract as recorded in Memorandum of Understanding dated 03.07.2013?
(9) What Order ? What Decree ?
2. Parties are further directed as under :-
(a) File respective affidavit of documents and serve a copy thereof on the other side on or before 11.1.2019 ;
(b) On or before 25.1.2019 inspection to be given and Statement of admission and denial with reasons for denial to be exchanged ;
(c) Plaintiffs to file list of witnesses, affidavit in lieu of examination in chief together with compilation of documents and serve a copy thereof upon defendants by 22.2.2019.
3 It is made clear that if affidavits of documents are not filed and inspection given, parties will not be permitted to rely upon any KJ ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 21:31:25 ::: 3/3 55.SUIT194.17.doc documents, copies whereof are not annexed to the plaint and/or written statement or mentioned in the list of documents annexed to the plaint/written statement. This however, shall not prevent a party from confronting the witness of the other with any document.
If statements of admission and denial are not given within the time prescribed, parties shall be deemed to have admitted the existence of all the documents relied upon by the other side.
4 Stand over to 27.2.2019 for marking of documents/recording of evidence at which time plaintiff's 1st witness shall remain present in court.
(K.R.SHRIRAM,J) KJ ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 21:31:25 :::