Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ld.Tr.Dir vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 11 October, 2011
10. Thus, it is evident that an Agreement to Sell was executed on
16.09.2010 by Defendant no. 3 in favour of Defendant no. 9.
Similarly, the GPA dated 16.09.2010 has been executed by Defendant
no. 3 in favour of Respondent no. 4 (Respondent no. 4 is not a party to
the suit and the application against him is not pressed by the Plaintiff).
Very wide powers were given by Defendant no. 3 in favour of Puneet
Chhabra to manage, sell, mortgage and gift her 1/3rd share in Property
No. 9/ 21, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. Relying on the judgment in
Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited v. State of Haryana and
Another, (2012) 1 SCC 656, the learned counsel for Respondents no. 1
to 3 (Defendants no. 3, 9 and 6 respectively) have urged that
Agreement to Sell and General Power of Attorney do not convey any
title nor do they amount to transferring or creating any interest in the
suit property. Thus, it is urged that the Respondents cannot be said to
have violated the status quo order dated 11.05.2010. On the other
hand, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff/ Applicant has urged that
I.A. No. 15449/ 2010 in CS (OS) No. 900/ 2010 Page 8 of 10
there may be some defects in passing title by virtue of Agreement to
Sell or GPA, yet the Respondents have done whatever was in their
power to violate the order dated 11.05.2010 and hence, the
Respondents cannot be permitted to contend that since legal transfer
did not take place by Agreement to Sell/ GPA, it will not amount to
violation of the status quo order.