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
| 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:-
"(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.
The High Court erred by commenting on the merits of orders while only addressing the delay condonation issue, necessitating restoration of appeals for merit consideration.
The Act of 2016 has an overriding effect over all other laws, and RERA proceedings should not be stalled due to a dispute between collaborators.
The court emphasized the necessity of maintaining status quo at a disputed site to prevent irreversible loss until the High Court hears the matter.
The Supreme Court emphasized the need for the High Court to expedite the disposal of pending applications under Article 226(3) of the Constitution, reinforcing the principle of timeliness in legal pr....
Ambiguous status quo orders are unsustainable; courts must specify the status to be preserved to avoid legal uncertainties.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.