DHRUVA GOEL vs M/S CHETANYA BUILDCON PVT LTD & ORS.

2024-04-05 Information

$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 5th April, 2024
+ CS(OS) 166/2024 and I.A. 4591/2024
DHRUVA GOEL ….. Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Anand Shankar Jha, Mr. Md. Ali, Mr. Sachin Mintri, Mr. Abhilekh Tiwari, Advocates (M: 9893379430).
versus

M/S CHETANYA BUILDCON PVT LTD & ORS. ….. Defendants
Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Shreyans Singhvi, Ms. Akanksha Agrawal & Ms. Tanuja Singh, Advs. (M-9971412456).
Mr. Shreyans Singhvi, Ms. Akanksha Agrawal & Ms. Tanuja Singh, Advs. for D-1 to 5. (M: 9811463632)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. This is a suit for specific performance in respect of the agreement to sell dated 1st January, 2016 executed in respect of the first floor of the property bearing No.D-26 (now known as I-8), Maharani Bagh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the suit property). The Plaintiff in the present suit also seeks a sum of Rs. 72 Lakh towards the rental income for the time period 27th January, 2021 to 27th January, 2024.
3. The Defendant Nos. 6 & 7 are the owners of the suit property who entered into a collaboration agreement dated 23rd May, 2013, with Defendant No.1 company which is engaged in the business of real estate development, construction and sale of building apartment etc. The Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are the directors of the Defendant No.1 company. Vide a General Power Attorney dated 24th December, 2014 the Defendant Nos.6 & 7 appointed Defendant No.1 to sell, lease out or to enter into agreement with respect to the suit property.
4. The Plaintiff, Defendant Nos. 6 & 7 and the Defendant No.1 (as confirming party) entered into a sale agreement with respect to the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 7.5 crores. The case of the Plaintiff is that out of the total sale consideration of Rs.7.5 crores, Rs.6.5 crores has already been paid and thereafter, Rs.1 crore is stated to have been paid in 2021 and the possession was handed over of the entire first floor. Grievance of the Plaintiff in this case is that the sale deed is not being executed.
5. On the last date, i.e., on 28th February, 2024, summons and notices were issued in the suit and in the applications. The Court had then directed as under:-
8. Issue summons in the suit and notice in the application through all modes. Considering the grievance being only in respect of sale deed Mr. Shreyans Singhvi, ld. Counsel, who was appearing for Chetanya Buildcon in another matter before this Court, has been asked to accept summons and notice. Mr. Shreyans Singhvi, ld. Counsel accepts summons and notice on behalf of Defendant Nos.1 to 5. Accordingly, ld. Counsel to seek instructions in this matter and make submissions on the next date of hearing. If instructions are not given, Mr. Vinod Saluja shall remain present in the Court on the next date of hearing.
9. Issue summons and notice to Defendant Nos.6 & 7 through all modes upon the steps being taken by the Plaintiff. Status quo shall be maintained in respect of the title of the first floor.

6. Today, Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 i.e., Mr. Vinod Saluja and Mr. Ankush Saluja are duly represented by Mr. Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Shreyansh Singhvi. Ld. Counsel accepts notice and summons on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1 to 5. Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 are the owners of the property, who are residents of Mumbai.
7. Mr. Piyush Sanghi and Mr. Sahil Pahwa, ld. Counsel appearing for the owners i.e., Defendant Nos. 6 &7, submit that the main relief is being sought only against Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and his clients are merely proforma parties.
8. Mr. Vinod Saluja, is also present in person. He submits that he is willing to execute the sale deed in respect of the first floor of the suit property as defined above in favour of the Plaintiff. The consideration received from the Plaintiff is also duly acknowledged by the Defendant Nos. 1 to 5.
9. Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff has sought instructions and submits that if the Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 execute the sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is willing to give up the monetary and other reliefs including interest etc., which has been sought in this suit.
10. In view of the above position, the Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are directed to execute the sale deed/conveyance deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the Plaintiff. At this stage, it is submitted by Mr. Vinod Saluja that the power of attorney issued by Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 is in favour of his employee, who has since left the Company. For the said purpose, Mr. Piyush Sanghi, ld. Counsel has obtained instructions from Defendant Nos. 6 & 7 who are agreeable to issue a fresh power of attorney in favour of Mr. Vinod Saluja and Mr. Ankush Saluja. Let the power of attorney be issued within two weeks and the registration of the sale deed be completed in eight weeks from now.
11. It is also submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff that the TDS amount on the consideration which was paid was not deducted when the payment was made in respect of January, 2021. Since the receipt of consideration is acknowledged, Mr. Vinod Saluja undertakes to give a certificate to the effect that the tax liability in respect of the consideration received has been discharged. Let the said certificate be issued by Mr. Saluja to the Plaintiff within eight weeks. No other relief is pressed.
12. In view of the fact that the suit has been decreed only on the second hearing, full Court fee which has been deposited is directed to be refunded to the Plaintiff.
13. The suit is decreed in the above terms.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
APRIL 5, 2024
mr/ks

CS(OS) 166/2024 Page 2 of 2