Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(v) Since the time for performance of the contract as agreed upon by the parties is 11 months from the date of Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 and before the time fixed for performance of the contract, the defendant is not entitled to terminate the contract unilaterally, arbitrarily and capriciously. The plaintiff, on receipt of the legal notice sent by the defendant, contacted the defendant in person through the Mediators and questioned his authority to cause such a legal notice, when the plaintiff has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions set out in the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007. At that point of time, the defendant requested the plaintiff to ignore the said legal notice and assured the plaintiff that he would complete the sale transaction as originally envisaged and further requested him not to issue any reply or rejoinder to the said legal notice or proceed legally. The plaintiff earnestly believed the representation made by the defendant that he would act as per business ethics and would not deal with the suit property, but would adhere to the terms of the contract as set out in the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007. But, however, the market enquiries of the plaintiff would reveal that the defendant is making hasty and hectic attempts to deal with the suit properties ignoring the various payments made by the plaintiff. The above action of the defendant prompted the plaintiff to cause a Public Notice in 'Dinamalar Tamil Daily' to safeguard her interest in relation to the suit properties and called upon the public not to deal with the suit properties, since there was a contract entered into by the owners of the property with the plaintiff. In the said circumstances, the plaintiff has filed the present suit after obtaining leave of this Court to institute the suit in this Court inasmuch as the subject matter of the suit contract was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant at Chennai, where the plaintiff and the defendant had preliminary and final rounds of discussions and thereafter, after reaching consensus, entered into the said contract for sale of the properties within the jurisdiction of this Court on 26.04.2007 and on the same day, the plaintiff made a payment of Rs.10,00,000/- to the defendants and on 14.05.2007 and 21.05.2007, the plaintiff had made further payments of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively. The entire cause of action for the suit arose at Chennai, i.e., within the jurisdiction of this Court except to the fact that the suit properties are located outside the jurisdiction of this Court.

(v) Since the time for performance of the contract as agreed upon by the parties is 11 months from the date of Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 and before the time fixed for performance of the contract, the defendants are not entitled to terminate the contract unilaterally, arbitrarily and capriciously. The plaintiff, on receipt of the notice sent by the defendants, contacted the defendants in person through the Mediators and questioned their authority to cause such a notice, when the plaintiff has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions set out in the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007. At that point of time, the defendants requested the plaintiff to ignore the said notice and assured the plaintiff that they would complete the sale transaction as originally envisaged and further requested not to issue any reply or rejoinder to the said notice or proceed legally. The plaintiff earnestly believed the representation made by the defendants that the defendants would act as per business ethics and would not deal with the suit properties, but would adhere to the terms of the contract as set out in the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007. But, however, the market enquiries of the plaintiff would reveal that the defendants are making hasty and hectic attempts to deal with the suit properties ignoring the various payments made by the plaintiff and his efforts in developing the properties in furtherance to the contract. The above action of the defendants prompted the plaintiff to cause a Public Notice in 'Dinamalar Tamil Daily' to safeguard her interest in relation to the suit properties and called upon the public not to deal with the suit properties, since there was a contract entered into by the owners of the property with the plaintiff. In the said circumstances, the plaintiff has filed the present suit after obtaining leave of this Court to institute the suit in this Court inasmuch as the subject matter of the suit contract was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants at Chennai, where the plaintiff and the defendants had preliminary and final rounds of discussions and thereafter, after reaching consensus, entered into the said contract for sale of the properties within the jurisdiction of this Court on 26.04.2007 and on the same day, the plaintiff made a payment of Rs.7,50,000/- to the defendants and on 21.05.2007, the plaintiff had made further payment of Rs.13,50,000/-. The entire cause of action for the suit arose at Chennai, i.e., within the jurisdiction of this Court except to the fact that the suit properties are located outside the jurisdiction of this Court.

(iv) The time for performance of the contract as agreed upon by the parties is 11 months from the date of Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 and before the time fixed for performance of the contract, the defendants are not entitled to terminate the contract unilaterally, arbitrarily and capriciously. The plaintiff, on coming to know about the attempts of the defendants to alienate the suit property, contacted the defendants in person through Mediators and questioned their authority to sell the suit schedule mentioned property without reference to the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007, which the wife and mother had entered into with the plaintiff herein, when the plaintiff has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions set out in the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007. At that point of time, the defendants requested the plaintiff to ignore the said information and assured the plaintiff that they would complete the sale transaction as originally envisaged by the wife and mother viz., S.Chandra and further requested him not to precipitate the matter further. The plaintiff earnestly believed the representation made by the defendants that they would act as per business ethics and would not deal with the suit property, but would adhere to the terms of the contract as set out in the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007. But, however, the market enquiries of the plaintiff would reveal that the defendants are making hasty and hectic attempts to deal with the suit property ignoring the various payments made by the plaintiff and its efforts in developing the property in furtherance to the contract. The above action of the defendants prompted the plaintiff to cause a Public Notice in 'Dinamalar Tamil Daily' to safeguard her interest in relation to the suit property and called upon the public not to deal with the suit property, since there was a contract entered into by the owners of the property with the plaintiff. In the said circumstances, the plaintiff has filed the present suit after obtaining leave of this Court to institute the suit in this Court, inasmuch as the subject matter of the suit contract was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant's wife and mother at Chennai, where the plaintiff and Mrs.S.Chandra, the wife and mother of the defendants herein had preliminary and final rounds of discussions and thereafter, after reaching consensus, entered into the said contract for sale of the properties within the jurisdiction of this Court on 26.04.2007 and on the same day, the plaintiff made a payment of Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant's wife and mother on 21.05.2007 and the plaintiff had made further payment of Rs.1,50,000/-. The entire cause of action for the suit arose at Chennai, i.e., within the jurisdiction of this Court except to the fact that the suit property is located outside the jurisdiction of this Court.

(v) The time for performance of the contract as agreed upon by the parties is 11 months from the date of Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 and before the time fixed for performance of the contract, the defendants are not entitled to terminate the contract unilaterally, arbitrarily and capriciously. The plaintiff, on receipt of the notice sent by the defendants, contacted the defendants in person through the Mediators and questioned their authority to cause such a notice, when the plaintiff has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions set out in the Agreement for Sale. At that point of time, the defendants requested the plaintiff to ignore the said notice and assured the plaintiff that they would complete the sale transaction as originally envisaged and further requested her not to issue any reply or rejoinder to the said notice or proceed legally. The plaintiff earnestly believed the representation made by the defendants that the defendants would act as per business ethics and would not deal with the suit property, but would adhere to the terms of the contract as set out in the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007. But, however, the market enquiries of the plaintiff would reveal that the defendants are making hasty and hectic attempts to deal with the suit property ignoring the payment made by the plaintiff and her efforts in developing the properties in furtherance to the contract. The above action of the defendants prompted the plaintiff to cause a Public Notice in 'Dinamalar Tamil Daily' to safeguard its interest in relation to the suit property and called upon the public not to deal with the suit properties, since there was a contract entered into by the owners of the property with the plaintiff in respect of the aforesaid property. In the said circumstances, the plaintiff has filed the present suit after obtaining leave of this Court to institute the suit in this Court inasmuch as the subject matter of the suit contract was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants at Chennai, where the plaintiff and the defendants had preliminary and final rounds of discussions and thereafter, after reaching consensus, entered into the said contract for sale of the property within the jurisdiction of this Court on 26.04.2007 and on the same day, the plaintiff made a payment of Rs.1,50,000/- to the defendants. The entire cause of action for the suit arose at Chennai, within the jurisdiction of this Court, except to the fact that the suit property is located outside the jurisdiction of this Court.