Chheda Housing Development ... vs Bibijan Shaikh Farid And Ors. on 15 February, 2007
19.
The Learned Advocate appearing for the Plaintiffs has submitted that the
Plaintiffs have complied with all the obligations required to be fulfilled by them
under the MoU dated 10th March 2008 and the Development Agreement dated
24th March 2008. It is submitted that however the Defendant No.1 Society has
not complied with clause 3 (b) of the Agreement under which the Defendant
No.1 is obliged to obtain Agreements for alternate accommodation from each
and every member of the Society. It is submitted that though the Plaintiff had in
its letter dated 1st August 2009, stated that the Plaintiffs will have to reconsider
its offer made to the members of the Society and will not be in a position to
furnish a Bank Guarantee, the Plaintiffs have subsequently by their letter dated
15th January, 2010, informed the office-bearers of the Society that if they are
ready to co-operate with the Plaintiffs and get the necessary Agreements
executed from each and every member of the Society pertaining to the alternate
accommodation to be provided by the Plaintiffs to the members of the Society,
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:22:33 :::
KPP -12-
the Plaintiffs will not change any of the terms agreed upon by the Plaintiffs in
the MoU/Development Agreement. It is submitted on behalf of the Plaintiffs
that the first Defendant therefore cannot contend that the Plaintiffs by their
letter dated 9th January 2009 have backed out from the offer made by the
Plaintiff to the Society and its members. The Plaintiffs have also relied on the
decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Chheda Housing Development
Corporation vs. Bibijan Shaikh Farid and others1 wherein it is held that an
agreement for use of TDR can be specifically enforced unless it is established
that compensation in money would be an adequate relief. It is submitted on
behalf of the Plaintiffs that the Plaintiffs have paid an amount of Rs. 45 lakhs to
the Defendant No.1 Society and has also incurred other expenses. The amounts
spent by the Plaintiffs are approximately to the tune of Rs. 93 lakhs. It is
therefore submitted that the balance of convenience is also in favour of the
Plaintiff and against the Defendant No.1 Society and that the Plaintiffs be
granted reliefs as sought.