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

1974 Supreme(Bom) 81

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(G.N. Vaidya J.)
UDYOG MANDIR PREMISES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. - Petitioner
Versus

M/s. CONTESSA KNIT WEAR - Opponent
Advocates appeared
For petitioner – N.S. Shastri.
For opponent No. 1 - Mrs. G.S. Pandit.

A court cannot grant an injunction to restrain proceedings in a court not subordinate to it.

Headnote:

INJUNCTION - JURISDICTION - SECTION 41(B) OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - SMALL CAUSES COURT - OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY UNDER THE MAHARASHTRA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT - JURISDICTION TO RESTRAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a co-operative society, filed an arbitration case against the opponents, alleging breach of tenancy regulations. Opponent No. 1, claiming tenancy protection under the Bombay Rent Act, filed a suit in the Small Causes Court and obtained an interim injunction restraining the petitioner from proceeding with the arbitration. The petitioner challenged the injunction, arguing that the Small Causes Court lacked jurisdiction to restrain proceedings before the Officer on Special Duty under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Small Causes Court lacked jurisdiction to restrain proceedings before the Officer on Special Duty under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The court relied on section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, which prohibits a court from granting an injunction to restrain proceedings in a court not subordinate to it. The court also noted that the Officer on Special Duty is a court, as held by a Full Bench of the court in Bapusaheb Balasaheb v. State.

Issues: Whether the Small Causes Court had jurisdiction to restrain proceedings before the Officer on Special Duty under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act prohibits a court from granting an injunction to restrain proceedings in a court not subordinate to it. The Officer on Special Duty is a court, and therefore the Small Causes Court lacked jurisdiction to restrain proceedings before the Officer on Special Duty.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revision application and set aside the interim injunction granted by the Small Causes Court.

JUDGMENT-Petitioner, Udyog Mandir Premises Co· operative Society Ltd., is a co-operative society, registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. On June 11, 1973, opponent No. 1, M/s Contessa Knit Wear, filed, in' the Court of Small Causes at Bombay, a declaratory suit, being Suit No, 771/2858 of 1973, against opponent No.2 as defendant No.1, Suresh Gurbuxani, opponent No.3 as defendant No.2, Mrs. Kenu S. Gurbuxani and opponent No.4, as defendant No.3 M/s Weather Works Ltd., praying for a declaration that opponent No. I was the legal and lawful tenant in respect of Unit No.3 situated on the 2nd floor in Plot No. 339 of Udyog Mandir Industrial Estate, Pitamber Lane, Mahim, Bombay 16, and was fully protected under the Bombay Rent Act notwithstanding the fact that it was inducted into the premises under an agreement of leave and licence dated July 23, 1972 for a period of eleven months, before the expiry of which the Bombay Rents. Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, was amended by the Maharashtra Act XVII of 1973 which came into force on February 1, 1973. Opponent No. 1 also prayed for an interim injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing its possession.

2. On August 29,1973 the petitioner-Society, which is governed by its registered bye-laws and allotment regulations at Appendix III to the bye-laws which, inter alia, lay down that no allottee shall surrender or part with possession of the residential or non-residential premises or any part thereof without the previous consent in writing of the Society, filed Arbitration Case No. ABN I A/1609 of 1973 before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bombay, against (1) M/s Weather Works, and (2) M/s Contessa Knit Wear, opponents Nos. 1 and 4 in the above revision application. In the statement of claim made by the petitioner-Society before the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bombay, under section 91 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, the Society contended that the regulations bound the allottee members of the Society, that M/s Weather Works, which was opponent No.1 in the said case, was a co-partner tenant· member of the Society, holding Units Nos. 11 and 12 on the ground floor and Unit No.3 on the 2nd floor, and opponent No.2 M/s Contessa Knit Wear was in occupation of Unit No.3 on the 2nd floor of the society's building as a licensee of opponent of No. 1 and as such claiming through member-opponent No. 1 and tenancy of opponent No. 1 was terminated for breach of Tenancy Regulations and hence the Society was entitled to recover possession from the said opponents .

3. Both the suit filed by opponent No. 1 and the claim made by the petitioner. Society are pending before the Small Causes Court at Bombay and the Officer on Special Duty respectively. Opponent No.1 M/s Contessa Knit Wear made an application in the suit in the Small Causes Court, on February 6, 1974, for an interim injunction restraining the defendants in the suit and also the petitioner. Society, which was also a party to the said application and which was added by making an application for amendment of the plaint. On that application an injunction was ordered by a Judge of the Small Causes Court on March 25/26, 1974 restraining the defendants in the suit and also the Society from proceeding with Arbitration Case No. ABN/A/1609 of 1973.

4. The said order of interim injunction is challenged in the above civil revision application on the ground that the Small Causes Court, even assuming that the suit was maintainable under section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, had no jurisdiction to restrain the defendants from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding before the Officer on Special Duty. Mr. Shastri, the learned counsel for the petitioner-Society, relied in support of his argument on section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which, in so far as is material, is as under:

"41 .….. An injunction cannot be granted-

(b) to restrain any person from









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