CIVIL REVISION NO.6589 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 19, 2008 M/s Anjanee Estates Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. .....Petitioner VERSUS M/s Ambience Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Delhi and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P. K. Aggarwal, Sr.Advocate with Ms. Jaishree Thakur & Mr.Aman Pal, Advocates, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Claiming that the petitioner has entered into an agreement with respondent No.1-Company for booking the office space on the floor of Ambi Mall Complex at Ambience Island on Delhi-Jaipur National Highway, Gurgaon, the petitioner has filed a suit for injunction alongwith an application for restraining the respondent-Company from alienating the space agreed to be sold to the petitioner. The trial Court granted the injunction in favour of the petitioner but on an appeal filed by respondent No.1-Company, the injunction order as granted, has been set-aside. Hence the present CIVIL REVISION NO.6589 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: revision petition. The petitioner-Company claims that it had booked the entire third floor for which the respondent Company had given them a discount of Rs.35 lacs as per the oral understanding. A sum of Rs.10 lacs was paid through a cheque dated 6.8.2004, which was duly received by the respondent Company. While the petitioner was awaiting demand from the respondent-Company, it learnt that construction of the office building has been started recently. The Director of the petitioner Company accordingly visited the office of the respondent and delivered a cheque of Rs.1,35,00,000/- on 12.4.2006. . The respondent Company, however, refused to accept the cheque and returned the same. It is at that stage that the petitioner realized that the respondents are resiling from the agreement when the petitioner got a legal notice issued on 26.4.2006. The respondents submitted reply to this legal notice, denying the factum of agreement as contended by the petitioner and also refunded the cheque of Rs.10 lacs, which was deposited as earnest money. Strangely, the petitioner would claim that payment of Rs.45 lacs has been made to the respondent Company as Rs.35 lacs were given as a rebate. It is stated that petitioner Company is ready and willing to get the sale deed completed. The respondents have filed a written statement and reply to the injunction application. It is stated that the suit is barred under Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act as no suit for permanent injunction is maintainable when equal efficacious remedy for enforcing the agreement to sell is available. CIVIL REVISION NO.6589 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: The trial Court granted the temporary injunction by observing that the respondents have already received a sum of Rs.10 lacs. The Appellate Court, however, discussed every aspect of the case in detail and came to conclude that there was no agreement in this case which could be enforced. The Appellate Court also took into consideration all the relevant factors which are to be viewed while granting any temporary injunction and ultimately set-aside the order passed by the Trial Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I am of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in the order passed by the Appellate Court. It has rightly been observed that the Trial Court granted the injunction without properly appreciating the facts of the case. As has been noticed by the Appellate Court, the case of the petitioners is based upon an application dated 31.7.2004, which is claimed to be an agreement. It would be strange to notice that though a sum of Rs.10 lacs concededly was paid through cheque but it is made out that the petitioner has paid a total amount of Rs.45 lacs as the respondents orally agreed to adjust the amount of Rs.35 lacs which was given as a rebate. This rebate of 35 lacs is not based on any written understanding but is only on the basis of an oral agreement. Relevant contents of the applications, which are being construed as an agreement, have been reproduced in extenso, which would show that this, by no stretch of imagination, can be termed as an agreement, as stated by the petitioners. Para 3 of the application contains an averment that allotment of space etc. is entirely at the CIVIL REVISION NO.6589 OF 2007 :{ 4 }: sole discretion of the Company and the Company has a right to reject any offer without assigning any reason. It is further mentioned in Para 5 of the application that until the commercial space buyer's agreement is signed and executed, there shall be no complete contract of sale and the parties shall not be entitled to enforce the same in the Court of law. This would clinchingly establish that there was no agreement or concluded contract between the parties, which can be enforced. It will also be noticeable that total value of the property is Rs.75,84,4247/- and this amount was to be paid in various instalments varying from Rs.45 lacs to Rs.11,250,000/- etc. starting from 6 months of the booking upto 48 months. It has rightly been observed by the Appellate Court that it is difficult to accept that sum of Rs.35 lacs would be agreed to be adjusted as a rebate and taken as an advance. Even if it was to be so, the same could have been deducted from the total amount payable and the remaining amount adjusted in the instalments. This appears to be a red-herring introduced by the petitioners without any basis and as such, can not be believed. Reference is made to number of judgments to show that in such like circumstances, temporary injunction can not be granted. The judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Shilpi Modes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shilpi Unitech, 1997 Delhi Law Times 636, is referred to say that where there is no binding contract between the parties and it is only a memorandum of understanding, it can not be said that there is prima-facie case for grant of injunction. It has also been held that suit for specific performance is not maintainable when the same is based on receipts and agreement is yet to be reached. CIVIL REVISION NO.6589 OF 2007 :{ 5 }: Reference can be made to Highway Farms Vs. Chinta Ram and others, (2000) Delhi Law Times 355. The objection, as raised by the respondent-Company, on the basis of Section 41-h of the Specific Relief Act can also not be easily ignored. Since the respondents had clearly disclosed to the petitioner that there was no agreement between the parties while refunding the amount of Rs.10 lacs, it is accordingly observed that the only remedy then left with the petitioner was to file a suit for specific performance. The limitation for filing such a suit would start running from the date of refusal. The petitioner accordingly should have more appropriately filed a suit for specific performance rather than the present suit filed for temporary injunction. The present suit, as such, even may not be maintainable. In view of these detailed reasoning, I see no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court. No other submission was made before me for interference in the impugned order. The revision petition is accordingly without any merit and is dismissed. March 19 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE