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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.S. NIJJAR, J.
M/s. Parekh Market Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. – Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Padmanabh Builders & Ors. – Respondents
Suit No. 4657 of 1994
Decided on : 03-11-1997

Advocates appeared:
For the plaintiffs : Mr. N.G. THAKKAR with Mr.A. BOOKWALA i/b M/s. PANCHAMATIA & CO.
For the defendant : Mr.M.SAKHARDANDE with Mr. RAVI KADAM i/b Mr.H.V.GALA for the defendants. Mr.BHOR

Headnote:Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 - Sections 6(iv) and (j), 6(x)-Item 7, Schedule I-Court fee-Jurisdiction of-The valuation of Court fees has to be decided only to discretion of plaintiff and thus the provisions extent not liable.- The valuation of the suit for the purposes of Court fees has to be left to the discretion of the plaintiff. It is only in cases where the suit has been grossly undervalued that the Court can examine the valuation and revise the same. In Court the position of law as it emerges from the above cases is as follows.

       Generally, the question of jurisdiction has to be decided on the basis of the averments in the plaint. The provisions of Section 6(iv)(j) will apply only when three conditions are satisfied viz. (1) the suit is for declaration, (2) the subject-matter in dispute is not susceptible of monetary evaluation, (3) the suit is not otherwise provided for by the Act. In other words Section 6(iv)(j) is a residuary provisions to provide a notional valuation for the purposes of the Act, when the case of the plaintiff is not covered by any other provision of the Act. Examined in the light Of the above, it becomes apparent that the case of the plaintiff would be squarely covered by Item 7 of Schedule I of the Act, if not covered by Section 6(xi) of the Act. The plaintiff have claimed that the defendants be restrained from causing damage to the existing structure. They claim to be entitled to any further FSI that becomes available. They claim that the defendants have illegally used the FSI available to the plaintiff for constructing seven garages. These are alleged to have been sold, without any compensation being paid to the plaintiff. Thus, the value of the suit for purposes of court fees has been put at over Rs. 59 lacs.

JUDGMENT :

The plaintiff has filed the present suit with the following prayers :

    (a) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare that there is valid, subsisting and binding agreement inter alia to convey the said property described in Ex.”A” hereto and the building standing thereon in favour of the Plaintiff and the Defendants No.1 to 4 are bound and liable to specifically perform their part of the said agreement and to comply with the statutory obligations under the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963.

    (b) The Defendants No.1 to 4 may be ordered and decreed to execute conveyance of the said plot more particularly described in Exhibit “A” hereto with the building standing thereon in favour of the plaintiff and be directed to do all such requisite, acts, deeds, things and matters and execute and sign all necessary and requisite documents, papers, forms, applications, deeds, things etc. for effectually vesting the said property described in Ex.”A” hereto with the building thereon in favour of the plaintiff.

    (c) For the purposes aforesaid all other directions and orders may be issued.

    (d) The Defendants their servants and agents and all person claiming through the Defendants may be restrained by a permanent order and injunction of this Hon’ble Court from in any way exploiting, consuming, utilising and/or taking advantage of Floor Space Index out of the said property described in Ex.”A” hereto or any part thereof and/ or any Floor Space Index by way of Transferable Development Rights and/or carry on any construction activities on the said plot or any part thereof by putting additional floor or floors and/or any additional structures on the said building and/or on the said property described in Ex.”A” hereto or any part thereof.

2. This Notice of Motion has been taken out for an order of injunction restraining the defendants No.1 to 4 from in any manner dealing with or disposing of the suit plot described in Ex.A to the plaint and/or the building or structure on the said plot. It is also prayed that the defendants be restrained by an order of injunction from in any way exploiting, consuming, utilising and/or taking advantage of Floor Space Index out of the said property described in Ex.A to the plaint. It is also prayed that the defendants be restrained by an order of injunction from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs business management and affairs of and concerning the said property or any part thereof including interfering with the plaintiff’s right to effect transfer of the shares of the plaintiff and/or the premises in the said building. An affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion has been filed. The defendants have filed their reply. Rejoinder and sur-rejoinder have also been filed.

3. At the outset, the counsel for the defendants has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, it is necessary to try this objection as a preliminary issue which is framed as under:

    preliminary issue which is framed as under: “Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit?”

4. Briefly stated the facts as pleaded in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a cooperative society registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, consisting of 66 members, who are the purchasers, acquirers and owners of the premises in the building. The building known as Parekh Market has been constructed by the defendants. The defendant No.1 is a partnership firm. The defendants No.1 to 4 are the partners of the defendant No.1. The defendants are carrying on business as Builders and Developers and are said to be “Promotors” within the meaning of Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act,1963. The defendant No.5 is a private limited company, who carries on the business of jewellery and is in occupation of shop No.8 and 9 on the ground floor of the Building. The defendant No.6 is a firm which carries on business of jeweller. Thi


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