SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 1385

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA AND R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Parinee Realty Pvt. Ltd. AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
M/S. Narendra A. Popat (huf) and others – Respondent
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 55386 of 2024 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10-09-2024 in WP No. 9770/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay]
Decided on : 20-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior Advocate, Mr. Siddhant Buxy, Advocate, Mr. Ativ Vrajesh Patel, Advocate, Mr. Ritwik Mohapatra, Advocate, Ms. Shambhavi Padhye, Advocate, Mr. Toshiv Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Varun Tyagi, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Chitranshul A. Sinha, Advocate, for the Respondent

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ Petition for Mandamus - High Court's order to maintain status quo until Maharashtra RERA concludes proceedings - Petition regarding complaint for possession of premises and non-compliance with allotment letter - Petition disposed, directing expedited hearing of the complaint. (Paras 2, 4, 11, 12)

(B) Administrative Authority's duty - The court emphasized the responsibility of the Maharashtra RERA to expedite proceedings and emphasized due process, indicating that an urgent hearing is critical, and status quo must be maintained till a decision is made. (Paras 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners contend that they were not put into possession of premises per the allotment letter dated 19 December 2012, resulting in a petition filed for urgency in RERA proceedings which are pending.

Findings of Court:
The High Court directed the Maharashtra RERA to decide the interim application within a stipulated period while maintaining status quo in the meantime.

Issues: The primary issue was the validity and reason behind maintaining the status quo and the necessity of an urgent hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Maharashtra RERA must address the application promptly while reiterating the necessity of due process, as the petitioners' rights must be preserved during the interim period.

Result: Special Leave Petition disposed of with directions.

Table of Content
1. context of high court's order in writ petition (Para 2)
2. petitioners' grievances regarding urgency and status quo (Para 3 , 5 , 7 , 8)
3. court's analysis on providing opportunity for hearing (Para 4 , 9 , 10)
4. instruction to rera for timely resolution (Para 11 , 12)
5. disposition of the special leave petition (Para 13 , 14 , 15)

ORDER :

1. Delay condoned.

2. This petition arises from a order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 10-9-2024 in Writ Petition No. 9770/2024 by which the High Court disposed of ..the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent No.1 - herein (original petitioner) directing the original Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 respectively before the High Court to maintain status-quo till the proceedings before the Maharashtra, RERA come to an end.

3. The impugned order reads thus:-

    "2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:

    "(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or direction(s) or Order(s) directing the MahaRE-RA Authority, Mumbai, to urgently expedite hearing and/or to deal with the Complaint No.CCOO6OOOOOO395566 of 2023 as also with the Miscellaneous Application therein for urgent Interim Reliefs, pending with the MahaRERA Authority, Mumbai and filed by the Petitioners herein against the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

    B. That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the effect, operation, implementation and/or execution of the Cancellation Letter dated 08.05.2024 (Exhibit-'K') issued by the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 to the Petitioners herein and further directing to maintain "status quo" till final hearing and disposal of the said Complaint No.CCOO6OOOOOO395566 of 2023 and also the Miscellaneous Application filed therein pending with the MahaRERA Authority, Mumbai."

3. Dr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that there is some urgency in the proceedings as respondent Nos.3 to 5 although were to put the petitioners in possession of the premises subject matter of allotment letter dated 19 December 2012 (page 40) including the further correspondence between the parties, the respondents have failed to do so. His contention is that in these circumstances, the petitioners had approached respondent No.2 in the proceedings of Complaint No.CCOO6OOOOOO395566 of 2023, however, as neither the said proceedings are being taken up by MahaRERA as also no orders are being passed on the Interim Application, hence, the petitioners were constrained to file the present petition. He submits that if ad-interim protection is not granted pending the proceedings before respondent No.2, serious prejudice would likely to be caused. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to the correspondence between the parties.

4. We have perused the record. As the only substantive prayer is that the Court should pass orders expediting the hearing of Complaint Complaint No.CC006000QD0395566 of 2023 as also that the Miscellaneous Application filed by the petitioner be decided by respondent No.2, we are of the opinion that keeping open all contentions of the parties, it is appropriate that MahaRERA takes up the Interim Application filed by the petitioners and after granting an opportunity of hearing to the parties, pass appropriate orders on the same. All contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept open.

5. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that respondent Nos. 3 to 5 shall maintain status quo in regard to the premises subject matter of allotment to the petitioners till further appropriate orders are passed by MahaRERA Authorities on the Interim Application and/or on the Complaint whichever is earlier. 6. Ordered accordingly.

7. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

8. In view of disposal of the petition, pending Interim Applications are also disposed of.

9. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order."

4. Mr.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top