The Supreme Court on Wednesday restored possession of 2,412 square yards land in Bandra in Mumbai to thespian superstar Dilip Kumar and directed him to give Rs 20 crore to a real estate firm which had entered into an agreement with him in 2006 to develop the property, but no construction took place.
A bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S Abdul Nazeer turned down the plea of Prajita Developers Pvt Ltd for enforcement of the agreement, and appointed its former judge Justice P Venkatarama Reddy as an arbitrator to examine whether the firm was entitled for damages from the film star.
"We do not also see any justification for the demand of the Prajita for the specific performance of the agreement. In the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that permitting the continuance of the suit for specific performance of the agreement which is more than a decade old against a person from whom Prajita secured the development rights of the property in dispute which ultimately would enable Prajita to 25 per cent of the monetary value of the development potential as against the right of the appellant who is entitled for 75 per cent of the monetary value of the development potential would be unjust," the bench said.
A bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S Abdul Nazeer turned down the plea of Prajita Developers Pvt Ltd for enforcement of the agreement, and appointed its former judge Justice P Venkatarama Reddy as an arbitrator to examine whether the firm was entitled for damages from the film star.
"We do not also see any justification for the demand of the Prajita for the specific performance of the agreement. In the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that permitting the continuance of the suit for specific performance of the agreement which is more than a decade old against a person from whom Prajita secured the development rights of the property in dispute which ultimately would enable Prajita to 25 per cent of the monetary value of the development potential as against the right of the appellant who is entitled for 75 per cent of the monetary value of the development potential would be unjust," the bench said.
No comments:
Post a Comment