Rishi Aggarwal vs M/S Vipul Infrastructure … on 30 November, 2016

7. A conjoint reading of all the paragraphs of the averments in the plaint,

it is apparent that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the

defendants for specific performance of contract and for permanent

injunction based on an agreement entered into between him and defendant

No.1 dated 04.01.2005 whereby the defendant No.1 had agreed to sell the

CS(OS) 2309/2013 Page 8
suit property to the plaintiff for a consideration of sum of Rs. 2,58,00,000/-.

The plaintiff has further averred that he was informed by defendant No.1

that he had entered into developers agreement with defendant No.2 for

developing the suit property and thereafter when defendant No.2 raised a

demand of `60 lakhs, he paid the said sum, one of Rs. 25,00,000/- vide

cheque dated 02.03.2007 and Rs.35,00,000/- vide demand draft dated

22.03.2007 for which two separate receipts were issued by defendant No.2.

It is, therefore, apparent that defendant No.2 is no stranger to the agreement

and pursuant to the agreement dated 04.01.2005, he had raised the demands

and also issued the receipts for payments received towards the construction

cost of Unit No.D-7, Tower B in the project, Municipal Number-6,

Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi. The argument of defendant No.2 that there

exists no cause of action against him, therefore, fails.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply