THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CASE No: C.

S /2011

Best Deals Agency

Plaintiff

v.

Mr. Abhishek Bach

Defendant

FILED BY COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents S.No. 1. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Page No.

2.

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

CASES

AND

4-5

3. 4.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION STATEMENT OF FACTS

6 7

5.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

6.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

10

7.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

12

8.

PRAYER

15

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. BOOKS REFERRED a) Universals The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 b) Law of Contract and Specific Relief, R.K Bangya c) Law of Contract, Pollock and Mulla

2. STATUTES REFERRED a) The Constitution of India, 1950 b) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 c) Law of Contract, 1872 d) Specific Relief Act

3. DICTIONARIES REFERRED a) Oxford Dictionary, 2009 Ed.

TABLE OF CASES

S.No 1.

CASES Rajasthan State Electricity Board v Hindustan Boveri Ltd.

CITATION AIR 1969 Raj 212

2.

Kalyan Mukherjee Syndicate

M/S

Rahul

AIR 1992 Cal 1

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Envision Engineering v Sachin Infra. Felthouse v Bindley Kanhayilal v Dineshchandra Lalman v Gauri Dutt Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Badri Prasad v State of Madhya Pradesh Mcpherson v Appana Shiv v Prahlad Hadibandu v Chandra A

AIR 2003 Guj 164

(1959) A.M.P 234 (1913) 11 All. LJ 489

(1971) 3 SCC 23

9. 10.

AIR 1951 SC 184 A 1973 Or 141

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

A.I.R S.C S.C.C All. LJ Sec.

All India Reporter Supreme Court Supreme Court Cases Allahbad Law Journal Section

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is humbly submitted that the Honble High Court of Delhi has original jurisdiction of this instant matter under Sec. 15 and 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

It is humbly submitted that the relevant facts to this case are as follows, 1. That Mr. Sachin Kumble is the sole proprietor of the Best Deals Estate Agency who is regarded by many as one having acute business acumen and the ability and is reputed to have never lost out on deals. As his agency succeeded and expanded to absorb more employees, Mr. Sachin insisted they model his example of customer service. 2. That his agency as part of a marketing strategy inaugurated its website on the 1 st of August,2011 where 17% discount was offered for properties up to Rs.20,00,000 and 23% for the same above Rs. 20,00,001. Also, it promised benefits and privileges to its members. 3. That two apartments on the website, one in Greater Kailash priced at Rs. 34, 00,000 and the other at Civil lines and priced at Rs. 18, 00,000 caught the interest of the plaintiff, Mr. Abhishek Bach, a famous movie actor. After signifying his interest by an e-mail and being intimated that hell be contacted the next day, he wasnt contacted for 3 days after which he called them himself and was put through a Mr. Munna, who negotiated the price of the GK-1 property modelling his boss, Mr. Sachins strategy. Mr. Munna offered a price of Rs. 30, 00,000 for it and Mr. Bach agreed, later adding that he would also like to buy the apartment at Civil Lines. However, no reply was heard. 4. That on 15th August, Best Deals Agency sent a free membership card and a letter of appreciation to one of its clubs to Mr. Bach and it was received by him. On the 17 th August, Mr. Bach flew to Delhi, intending to pay for both apartments. However, he was informed that he can take over the possession of apartment at GK-1 and not the one at Civil Lines as no contract was entered into for it. Flustered, he blasted Mr. Sachin for the way he was being treated and said that he would either take possession of both apartments or neither. Mr. Sachins only reply was that he had no knowledge of the transaction and he couldnt be held responsible. 5. That an earthquake structurally damaged the apartment at GK-1 on 20th August meanwhile which, Mr. Bach utilised his membership card to use the agencys swimming pool. Mr. Bach

refused to comply and alter his stand after the Agency demanded he pay up Rs. 30, 00,000 for the apartment on the 23rd of August. The agency was also unable to find any other buyers owing to the damage done. 6. That the Best Deals Agency filed a civil suit against Mr. Bach on the 23rd of August before the Honble High Court of Delhi praying for the specific performance of the contract of GK-1 Apartment. Mr. Bach, in response preliminarily challenged its jurisdiction and denied the existence of such a contract and claimed that the contract was for 2 apartments which the agency was unwilling to perform. He further claimed costs. Hence, the present case.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the Honorable High Court of Delhi has original jurisdiction over this instant matter? 2. Whether there was a valid contract between the parties for the apartment at Greater Kailash? 3. Whether there was a valid contract between the parties for the apartment at Civil lines? 4. Whether the contract can be enforced on the defendant under the Specific Relief Act?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. That the Honble High Court of Delhi has original jurisdiction in the instant
matter. 1.1 That the provisions of Article of CPC of 1908 is applicable. That the provisions of Article of 225 0f Constitution of India is applicable in the instant matter. Sec 16 of CPC holds that Suits to be instituted where subject-matter situate subjected to pecuniary limits.

2. That there was valid contract between the two parties for the flat at Greater
Kailash-I. 2.1 That there was an invitation of offer followed by a negotiation and a offer which was then accepted There was an invitation of offer by means of the website which was reciprocated by Mr. Abhishek Bachs interest that in turn let to a proposal from Best Deals Agency which was accepted by Mr. Bach. 2.2 That this amounted to a valid acceptance turning the agreement into a valid contract.

3. That there is no contract between the parties for the apartment at Civil Lines.
3.1 Communication of acceptance not completed]

Sec 4 of Indian Contract Act defines when communication of acceptance is completed. Communication of offer gets completed when as against the acceptor, when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer. In the instant case since the phone got disconnected before the completion of acceptance for the flat at Civil Lines hence there was no communication of the acceptance and no contract completed.

4. That there is a need for enforcement of the contract for Greater Kailash apartment
3.1 By the provisions of Sec. 10 of the Specific Relief Act a contract may be enforced if standard for ascertaining the actual damage done does not exist. This is the same here as the defendants refusal to pay and buy the apartment plus earthquake damage has led to unascertained damages and loss for the plaintiff.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. That the Honorable High Court of Delhi has Original jurisdiction on this instant case

1.1 It is humbly submitted that the Honorable High Court of Delhi has valid and original jurisdiction over this instant case. This is in accordance with Article 225 of the Indian Constitution from which it derives its authority. Also, under Sec. 16 of the Civil Procedure Code an issue concerning an immovable will be heard in the court in the area where the immovable is situated. This provision of the CPC was held in Shiv v Prahlad1 and also Hadibandu v Chandra A2. This is absolutely so, as both the properties in contention are in Delhi, within the High Courts territorial jurisdiction. Lastly, the institution of a civil suit contending the specific performance of a property worth over Rs. 20, 00,000 complies with the pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi as prescribed in Sec. 6 of the Civil Procedure Code and the Delhi High Court rules.

2. That there was a valid agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant for the apartment at Greater Kailash.

1 2

A 1926 L 506 A 1973 Or 141

2.1 It is submitted that under the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, A contract is an agreement enforceable by law. A valid agreement is a result of a proposal or an offer made by a person or a party to another who responds to it by his acceptance. These acceptances maybe express or implied. Also, this acceptance must be unconditional and absolute. Here, an offer to buy the flat at Greater Kailash was made by the plaintiff who had made an invitation to offer for the same by means of its website to Mr. Bach who had agreed to the same. Invitation to offer or a standing, general offer is different from an offer as was held in Lalman v Gauri Dutt3, Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co4. and Badri Prasad v State of Madhya Pradesh5 and Mcpherson v Appana6. Consideration, which is a condition precedent for a contract too had been fulfilled by the same when Best Deals Agency had sent a letter of appreciation and a free membership card to Mr. Bach.

3. There was no valid contract between the parties for the apartment at Civil lines 3.1 Sec. 4 of the Indian Contract Act defines communication in an agreement to have been complete as against the acceptor, when his acceptance comes to the knowledge of the proposer. However, in this instant case this was not the issue. When the defendant raised the offer to buy the apartment at Civil lines, no response was received, presumably out of network coverage. Every agreement requires that acceptance or proposal be absolute and should be signified to the receiver as was the case in Felthouse v Bindley7 and Kanhayilal v Dineshchandra8. However, neither

3 4

(1913) 11 All. LJ 489

5 6 7

(1971) 3 SCC 23 AIR 1951 SC 184

was their any reply from the plaintiff, nor was there any attempt by the defendant to illicit one, even after a non-reply. Even if the plaintiff had accepted, the agreement would be void as this was not heard and signified to the defendant, Mr. Bach. 4. Enforcement of Specific Performance of the contract at Greater Kailash 4.1 The defendant has failed to acknowledge the contract made for the apartment at Greater Kailash. He has refused to pay for the possession of the apartment. This stand remains even after the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs 20,00,000 to the previous owner. Also, due to the damage caused by the earthquake, there were no other buyers to turn to. The apartment now stands unsought and in desperate need of refurbishment and reconstruction which will be expensive, the cost of which is pretty hard to ascertain. Therefore, the plaintiff pleads that the contract be enforced under Sec. 10 of the Specific Relief Act by which a contract may be enforced where there exists no standard for ascertaining actual damage done by non-performance. This will be in consonance with the previous judgments like in Rajasthan State Electricity Board v Hindustan Brown Boveri Ltd., Kalyan Mukherjee v M/S Rahul Syndicate and Envision Engineering v Sachin Infra.

(1959) A.M.P 234

PRAYER

Wherefore in light of the facts of the case, issues raised, authorities cited and arguments advanced, it is humbly prayed that this Honble High Court may be pleased to, 1. Exercise its unquestionable original jurisdiction over this instant matter 2. Direct the defendant, Mr. Bach for specific performance of the contract regarding the apartment at Greater Kailash. 3. Declare the invalidity of the contract alleged by the defendant for the apartment at Civil lines. 4. Pass any other order that this Honble Court deem appropriate. And hence, render justice.

NEW DELHI

FILED BY:

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF