Sec.22, 27 of Specific Relief Act - Specific Performance of sale agreement - contingent sale agreement - it was specifically mentioned that the sale also be subject to your (defendants) being able to settle with your labour - Trial court dismissed the suit - Appellant court order for refund of amount with interest - Apex court held that The agreement for sale is a contingent agreement depending upon obtaining
permission under Section 22 and Section 27 of the ULC Act, property being converted from industrial zone to residential use and settlement with the labour and the labour agreeing to the sale contemplated therein. If any of the conditions are not fulfilled, the respondents were not bound to complete the sale and the appellant was only entitled for return of the
money with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of refusal of any of the
permission or consent or agreement mentioned above. -2015 S.C.MSK LAW REPORTS
In
the agreement dated 19.10.1977, it was specifically mentioned that the sale
also be subject to your (defendants) being able to settle with your labour
and your labour agreeing to the sale contemplated herein and if you are not
able to settle with your labour and to get them to agree to the sale herein
contemplated you will not be bound to complete the sale.
The moment labour
do not agree to the sale contemplated, under the terms of the contract, the
respondents were not bound to complete the sale.
The maximum period of
nine (9) months does not mean that once the labour had declined to give
their consent for the proposed sale, the contract subsists for a period of
nine (9) months and it cannot be terminated before that period.
The
agreement for sale is a contingent agreement depending upon obtaining
permission under Section 22 and Section 27 of the ULC Act, property being
converted from industrial zone to residential use and settlement with the
labour and the labour agreeing to the sale contemplated therein.
If any of
the conditions are not fulfilled, the respondents were not bound to
complete the sale and the appellant was only entitled for return of the
money with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of refusal of any of the
permission or consent or agreement mentioned above.
As in the present case
we find that the Mill Mazdoor Sabha has not given its consent to the
proposed sale, agreement for sale could not have been performed and had
ceased.
The appellant is only entitled to refund of the amount along with
interest @ 18% per annum stipulated therein.
In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the High
Court was right in setting aside the decree passed by learned single Judge
of the High Court.
We do not find any merit in these appeals, hence, the
appeals fail and are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
Interlocutory Applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly.
permission under Section 22 and Section 27 of the ULC Act, property being converted from industrial zone to residential use and settlement with the labour and the labour agreeing to the sale contemplated therein. If any of the conditions are not fulfilled, the respondents were not bound to complete the sale and the appellant was only entitled for return of the
money with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of refusal of any of the
permission or consent or agreement mentioned above. -2015 S.C.MSK LAW REPORTS
In
the agreement dated 19.10.1977, it was specifically mentioned that the sale
also be subject to your (defendants) being able to settle with your labour
and your labour agreeing to the sale contemplated herein and if you are not
able to settle with your labour and to get them to agree to the sale herein
contemplated you will not be bound to complete the sale.
The moment labour
do not agree to the sale contemplated, under the terms of the contract, the
respondents were not bound to complete the sale.
The maximum period of
nine (9) months does not mean that once the labour had declined to give
their consent for the proposed sale, the contract subsists for a period of
nine (9) months and it cannot be terminated before that period.
The
agreement for sale is a contingent agreement depending upon obtaining
permission under Section 22 and Section 27 of the ULC Act, property being
converted from industrial zone to residential use and settlement with the
labour and the labour agreeing to the sale contemplated therein.
If any of
the conditions are not fulfilled, the respondents were not bound to
complete the sale and the appellant was only entitled for return of the
money with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of refusal of any of the
permission or consent or agreement mentioned above.
As in the present case
we find that the Mill Mazdoor Sabha has not given its consent to the
proposed sale, agreement for sale could not have been performed and had
ceased.
The appellant is only entitled to refund of the amount along with
interest @ 18% per annum stipulated therein.
In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the High
Court was right in setting aside the decree passed by learned single Judge
of the High Court.
We do not find any merit in these appeals, hence, the
appeals fail and are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
Interlocutory Applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly.
