Vipul Infrasturcture Developer v. Rohit Kochhar & Anr

REVA KHETRAPAL, J March 11, 2008 Rohtash

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) 196-197/2005 & FAO(OS) 205/2005 % Date of Decision: 11th March, 2008 1. FAO(OS) 196-197/2005 VIPUL INFRASTURCTURE DEVELOPERS . ..... Appellants LTD. & ANR. Through Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Manish Sharma and Mr.Amit Bhardwaj, Advocates versus ROHIT KOCHHAR & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr.P.V. Kapur, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Anish Kapur and Mr.Vimal Nagrath, Advocates for respondent No.1. Mr.Valmiki Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Rajeev M. Roy, Advocate for R-2 2. FAO(OS) 205/2005 PUNIT BERIWALA ..... Appellant Through Mr.Valmiki Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Rajeev M. Roy, Advocate versus ROHIT KOCHHAR & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr.P.V. Kapur, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Anish Kapur and Mr.Vimal Nagrath, Advocates for respondent No.1. Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Manish Sharma and Mr.Amit Bhardwaj, Advocates for respondents No.2 and 3. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL 1. Whether reporters of local papers be allowed to see the judgment ?yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?yes DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, CJ: 1. These appeals which involve similar issues are disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The issue that arise for consideration in these appeals is as to whether or not the Delhi Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit instituted by the respondent. In paragraph 46 of the plaint it was stated thus:- "46. That the Corporate office of Defendants No.1 & 2 and the Registered office of Defendant No.3 is at Saket, New Delhi and the Defendants carry on business and work for gain at Delhi. The Defendants made the offer to sell the suit premises to the Plaintiff at New Delhi and the Plaintiff accepted the said offer also at New Delhi. The payments were also made by the Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 at New Delhi. Accordingly, the Agreement was concluded at New Delhi. Further, the Plaintiff is merely seeking the relief of specific performance of the contract dated 16/20.01.2004 for sale concluded between the parties, which relief can be entirely enforced through the personal obedience of the Defendants. Therefore, this Hon'ble Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit." 3. The aforesaid suit was based on the alleged contract dated 16/20.01.2004 alleging that the commercial property measuring 10,747 sq. ft. (1998.420 sq. mtrs.) on the second floor of the Fortune Global Hotel and Commercial Complex, Gurgaon was sought to be conveyed. In para 8 of the plaint it was stated thus:- "8. That after discussions and negotiations Shri Achal Raina, Vice President of Defendant No.1 sent a written communication dated January 16, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the "Offer Letter") containing the aforesaid offer to the Plaintiff, in respect of the suit premises. The Offer Letter contained the following terms and conditions: PRICE :Rs. 4200/- persq. ft. PAYMENT SCHEDULE : Immediately on Booking : 10% of the total sale Consideration. By 28.02.2004 : 85% of the total sale consideration. At the time of notice for possession of the premises: Balance 5% of the total sale consideration. 1. The offer also includes 15 number of Car parking spaces in the basement. 2. Further the above price does not include the cost towards registration/stamp duty, electricity connection, maintenance deposit and other miscellaneous charges for the registration of the said premises. 3. Any delayed payment shall attract an interest @ 18% per annum (compounded quarterly) for the period of delay. 4. The above offer is valid till the close of business hours, i.e., 20th February, 2004." 4. The appellant, therefore, has extracted in the aforesaid paragraph, the entire alleged contract which was allegedly created between the respondent and the appellant. In paragraphs 42 and 43 it is stated by the respondent-plaintiff as follows: "42. That since the Defendants have not