IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4615 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4615 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4615 OF 2007 IN IN IN SUIT NO. 3244 OF 2006 SUIT NO. 3244 OF 2006 SUIT NO. 3244 OF 2006 Vijay Rai ...Plaintiff vs. Mr.R.J. Sethna ...Defendant Ms.Rajni Iyer i/b. Mr.Ajay K.J. Panicker for the Plaintiff. Mr.D.D. Madon, Senior Counsel with Mr.Shroff i/b. Mr.R.A.K. Najam-es-sani for the Defendant. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : AUGUST 26, 2008 DATED : AUGUST 26, 2008 DATED : AUGUST 26, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for a declaration that the agreement recorded in letters dated 14th February, 1997, 10th March, 1997 and 24th March, 1999 pertaining to sell of flat No.6B - Dolphin Apartment, Pilot Bunder Road, Colaba, Mumbai-400 005, is valid and subsisting and also for Specific Performance of the said agreement. Thereafter, a Notice of Motion was taken out in 2007. Initially, application was made for ad-interim relief in December, 2007, however, at the - 2 - request of the plaintiff, the Notice of Motion was adjourned. Thereafter, another attempt was made for ad-interim relief in January, 2008. However, on the second occasion also, a date was sought by the plaintiff. Thereafter, again an application has been filed seeking ad-interim relief. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was working as the Managing Director of a company known as Rallies India Limited. While he was occupying the said premises in that capacity, there was a negotiation between the plaintiff and defendant and it is the case of the plaintiff that the proposal which was given by him by the aforesaid letters was accepted by the defendant. He submitted that the plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to Specific Performance of the said agreement. 4. Counsel for the defendant, on the other hand, submitted that there was no concluded contract and letters dated 14th February, 1997 and 10th March, 1997 cannot be treated as a concluded contract. He submitted - 3 - that even assuming that such a proposal was given by the defendant, there was no confirmation by the plaintiff to the letter dated 10th March, 1997. He submitted that letter at Exhibit-C which purportedly recorded the agreement of the contract is not a concluded contract and was not delivered to the defendant. He submitted that Exhibit-D dated 24th March, 1999 is an Advocate’s proposal and the said notice also does not confirm the said agreement. It is submitted that the plaintiff had filed the suit in the Small Causes Court for a declaration that he is a tenant in respect of the said premises. He submitted that no interim relief was granted in the said suit. He further submitted that the company had filed a criminal complaint against the plaintiff under Section 630 of the Companies Act and in the said proceedings, the trial Court had convicted the plaintiff. He further invited my attention to the undertaking given by the plaintiff to the Court that he would vacate the premises and handover the possession to Rallis India. He also invited my attention to the Consent Decree which is passed by the Small Causes Court in which Rallis India Ltd. had agreed to handover the - 4 - possession of the premises to the defendant. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not possible to accept the submission made by the Counsel for the plaintiff. Letters dated 14th February, 1997, 10th March, 1997 and 24th March, 1999 prima facie do not disclose that it is a concluded contract. Secondly, there is no material to show that the plaintiff had confirmed the letter dated 10th March, 1997 which was written by the defendant to the plaintiff. The letter at Exhibit-C prima facie does not appear to have been served on the defendant. There is no material to indicate that this letter was served on the defendant. Exhibit-D is a letter written by the defendant’s Advocate regarding the proposal and counter proposal given by the parties and that being the position, no case is made out by the plaintiff for grant of ad-interim relief. 5. Motion, accordingly, is dismissed. 6. At this stage, learned Counsel for the - 5 - plaintiff seeks continuation of the interim order. 7. It is clarified that the ad-interim order was granted only till the next date since the Counsel for the defendant was not present. The question of extension of ad-interim order does not arise. This request is declined. (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)