ECE INDUSTRIES LIMITED versus S.P. REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS P. LTD. & ANR.

ECE INDUSTRIES LIMITED versus S.P. REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS P. LTD. & ANR.

The Supreme Court held that since two courts below concurrently refused to grant injunction, and there is no perversity or arbitrariness in their findings, substantial construction has already been made, amounts under the agreement deposited, and balance of convenience does not favour appellant, interference is unwarranted and injunction denied.

Parties
Appellant: ECE Industries Limited; Respondent: S.P. Real Estate Developers P. Ltd.; Respondent: S.P. Real Estate Developers P. Ltd. & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Disposition by Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Injunction, Concurrent Findings, Development Agreement, Balance of Convenience
Civil Procedure Injunction Concurrent Findings Development Agreement Balance of Convenience

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ECE Industries Limited

Appellant

S.P. Real Estate Developers P. Ltd.

Respondent

S.P. Real Estate Developers P. Ltd. & Anr.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Disposition by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the rejection of injunction applications by lower courts can be interfered with by the Supreme Court
  2. 2 Whether substantial construction and payments justify denial of injunction
  3. 3 Whether balance of convenience favours grant of injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that since two courts below concurrently refused to grant injunction, and there is no perversity or arbitrariness in their findings, substantial construction has already been made, amounts under the agreement deposited, and balance of convenience does not favour appellant, interference is unwarranted and injunction denied.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Respondents shall not claim equities over the construction made and will be bound by the decision in the suit.
  • Respondents shall furnish particulars of prospective buyers of residential units in advance to Competent Authority/Urban Land Ceiling, with clear recital in sale agreements that purchases are subject to suit outcome.