2013 Supreme(SC) 285

Supreme Court of India
P. SATHASIVAM & JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.
Margaret Almeida & Others – Appellants
Versus
Bombay Catholic Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 2683-2685 of 2013 (Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos. 30847-30849 of 2012) With Civil Appeal Nos. 2688-2688 of 2013 (Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos. 30867-30869 of 2012) And Civil Appeal Nos. 2689-2690 of 2013 (Arising Out Of SLP (C) Nos.28256-28257 of 2012)
Decided On : 22-03-2013

Headnote:

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 - Section 91 - Rule 17 of the M.C.S. Rules, 1961 - claim pressed by appellants – quash -Court pronounced the operative part of the Order directing that the aforesaid appeals are allowed and interim order dated 5th May 2011 stood vacated. The Counsel appearing on your behalf immediately requested the Hon’ble Court to stay the operation and effect of the said order for a reasonable time to allow the matter to be tested in Appeal -However, the Hon’ble Court did not allow the said application and inter alia directed that the Sumer Associates Builders (Appellants in Appeal No.413 of 2011) shall not demolish the structures in which our clients reside upto 30th September 2012. I have made an application for the certified copy of the said order and same shall forward the same on its receipt. In the circumstances, you are advised to kindly file your Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and request for stay of the effect and implementation of the order dated 9th August 2012 at the earliest –Held, petitioners have now realized that the above petition being prosecuted is only in the interest of B.Y. Chavan and Sagar Builders & Developers, the respondent nos. 17 and 18 in the above matter and therefore having settled their differences with the respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 have addressed letters to Advocates Shally Bhasin Maheshwari, who has been engaged by the respondent nos. 17 and 18 on behalf of the petitioners calling upon the said Advocates to forthwith withdraw the above Special Leave Petition. However, notwithstanding the said instructions the said Advocates have failed to withdraw the petition and now instead of withdrawing the petition seek to continue with this Special Leave Petition by merely dropping these petitioners as petitioners. The petitioner no. 6 Martin James Michael has also settled his differences with respondent nos. 1 and 20 and his siblings and has also instructed Advocate Shally Bhasin Maheshwari to withdraw the petition, however, since then he has sometime in the past few weeks passed away and therefore he may be dropped as petitionerCourt in respect of the offer of Rs.75 crores can be stated to have been made at the behest of a rival builder Mr. B.Y. Chavan. Mr. B.Y. Chavan has even paid for the litigation expenses of the tenant-members. The tenant-members readily accepted the offer made by Mr. B.Y. Chavan, when he proposed before the High Court that he would act in the same manner as M/s. Sumer Associates. It is therefore natural to infer, that the tenant-members are agreeable to the redevelopment of 5.5 acres land comprising of Willingdon East in the manner contemplated by the resolution of the Catholic Society dated 6.12.2009 (and the consequential conveyance deed dated 7.12.2009), which is impugned in the suits filed by the tenant-members. This also prima facie shows that the action of the tenant-members prima facie seems to lack bona fides - Court in respect of the offer of Rs.75 crores can be stated to have been made at the behest of a rival builder Mr. B.Y. Chavan. Mr. B.Y. Chavan has even paid for the litigation expenses of the tenant-members. The tenant-members readily accepted the offer made by Mr. B.Y. Chavan, when he proposed before the High Court that he would act in the same manner as M/s. Sumer Associates. It is therefore natural to infer, that the tenant-members are agreeable to the redevelopment of 5.5 acres land comprising of Willingdon East in the manner contemplated by the resolution of the Catholic Society dated 6.12.2009 (and the consequential conveyance deed dated 7.12.2009), which is impugned in the suits filed by the tenant-members. This also prima facie shows that the action of the tenant-members prima facie seems to lack bona fides. We therefore affirm the determination rendered by the High Court in the impugned order, that it was for the Catholic Society to decide who should be given the redevelopmental rights, and not the tenant-members who are a small minority of 15 persons (the number having now diminished to 5) who have initiated the litigation out of which the present proceedings have arisen - Appeals dismissed