2016 (11) TMI 1690 - HC - Indian Laws

Application for vacating the interim order - agreement for sale transcribed on sufficient Stamp Paper or not - HELD THAT - The agreement for sale which was allegedly entered into between the parties, has also annexed to the injunction application. The agreement was typed out on ten rupee Non-Judicial Stamp Paper - it is found that the agreement itself was typed out on insufficient Stamp Paper. Such an agreement for sale parse cannot be enforced unless the document is impounded. Impounding can be done only when the original agreement is tendered into evidence. The plaintiff claims that he has paid a sum of ₹ 65,00,000/- on account of earnest money in cash. The agreement does not contain any receipt clause. No separate receipt is also forth-coming from the side of the plaintiff showing payment of ₹ 65,00,000/- to the defendants; even the agreement does not contain any description of the notes by which such payment was tendered to the plaintiff - It cannot be held that a prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiff for going for trial. The learned Trial Judge did not commit any illegality by refusing to pass any ad interim order of injunction in such a suit - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the agreement for sale due to insufficient stamp paper.
2. Lack of receipt clause for earnest money payment.
3. Prima facie case for specific performance of contract.
4. Refusal of ad interim injunction by the Trial Judge.

Analysis:
1. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract, claiming to have entered into an agreement for sale with the defendants. The agreement was allegedly typed on insufficient stamp paper, rendering it unenforceable without impoundment upon tendering into evidence.
2. The agreement lacked a receipt clause for the earnest money payment of ?65,00,000 made by the plaintiff in cash. No separate receipt or description of the notes used for payment was provided, weakening the plaintiff's case.
3. The Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for trial, especially due to the deficiencies in the agreement and lack of proper documentation for the earnest money payment.
4. The Trial Judge's refusal to grant an ad interim injunction was upheld, with the High Court dismissing the appeal and confirming the Trial Judge's decision. The defendants were directed to file their affidavit-in-opposition within three weeks, and the Trial Judge was urged to expedite the proceedings.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal due to the inadequacies in the agreement and lack of supporting documentation for the earnest money payment, affirming the Trial Judge's decision to refuse the ad interim injunction. The Court emphasized the need for proper documentation and upheld the importance of establishing a prima facie case for specific performance of contract.