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

2008 Supreme(Bom) 463

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.
Bjranglal Eriwal & Ors. ...Plaintiffs.
Vs.
Sagarmal Chunilal & Ors. ...Defendants.
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.700 OF 2008
IN SUIT NO.467 OF 2008
Decided on : 27-03-2008.

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Sanjay Jain with Ms.Sandhya Jain i/b.Mr. Ajay K.J. Panicker for
the Plaintiffs.
Mr. P. G. Karande for the Defendants.

The main legal principle established in the judgment is the requirement for specific consent and full disclosure of the project by the developer under Section 7(1) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963.

Headnote:

Interim Relief - Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act - Section 7(1) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the obligations of the developer under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963, particularly focusing on Section 7(1) which prohibits alterations or additions to the building without the consent of flat purchasers. The court highlighted the interpretation of Section 7(1) and emphasized the requirement for specific consent and full disclosure of the project by the developer.

Fact of the Case:

The suit involved a dispute regarding the construction of an additional floor by the developer, which was alleged to be in breach of the obligations under Section 7(1)(ii) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. The plaintiffs sought interim relief to restrain the developer from further construction.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the developer had breached the obligation under Section 7(1)(ii) of the Act by constructing the 18th floor without the specific consent of the flat purchasers. It granted interim relief in favor of the plaintiffs to prevent a breach of statutory obligations.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the interpretation of Section 7(1) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, particularly concerning the requirement for specific consent and full disclosure of the project by the developer.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 7(1) and the requirement for specific consent and full disclosure of the project by the developer. It emphasized the need for informed consent and highlighted the statutory obligations of the developer.

Final Decision: The court granted interim relief in favor of the plaintiffs, restraining the developer from further construction that would breach the statutory obligations under the Act. The plaintiffs were allowed to seek further reliefs at the appropriate stage if necessary.

JUDGMENT:

The Motion for interim relief arises in a suit which has been instituted principally to enforce the obligation of the developer under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (“the Act”). Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs has, at the present stage, urged submissions in support of prayer clauses (c ), (d) and (e) of the Motion by which an order of injunction has been sought:

(i) Restraining the First Defendant from putting up any additional construction, horizontally or vertically in the building in question, contrary to the layout and the sanctioned plan without the specific consent of the Plaintiffs under Section 7 of the Act;

(ii) Restraining the First Defendant from using, selling and disposing of or creating third party rights or interests in the flat constructed on the 18th Floor or any other upper floors to be constructed; and

(iii) Restraining the Third Defendant – the Municipal Corporation, from approving any amendment to the lay out and building plans without the specific consent of the Plaintiffs under Section 7 of the Act.

2. The suit relates to a building situated on Final Plot 138, TPS-III at Senapati Bapat Marg, Matunga, Mumbai. The First Defendant is a developer who is engaged in carrying on development on the plot of land, which admeasures 2043 sq.yards. There were old tenanted structures, some of which were A-category cessed structures within the meaning of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. A proposal was submitted under the Development Control Regulation 33(7) for the redevelopment of the property and upon plans being approved, a rehabilitation building to accommodate the tenants and a free sale building enabling the developer/owner to market and dispose of residential flats were to be constructed.

3. The agreement with the Plaintiffs was entered into on 9th October 2006. The recitals to the agreement inter alia provide in clause 4 that since the property was constructed prior to 1st September 1940, it has been classified in Category-A for the purpose of the levy of repair cess under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, and the owner had envisaged a scheme of redevelopment under Development Control Regulation 33(7). The aforesaid recital specifically provides that under the scheme for redevelopment, the owner had planned a separate building consisting of a ground floor and seven floors for the benefit of tenants and occupants and another building consisting of stilts and 17 floors for the benefit of flat purchasers. Clause 10 of the recitals once again emphasizes that the owner has sole and exclusive rights to sell flats and premises in the new multi-storeyed building consisting of stilts and 17 floors. Clause 13 refers to the fact that the Municipal Corporation had sanctioned the plans on 19th May 2001 for the building and has granted an IOD. Clause 15 stipulates that copies inter alia of the IOD and Specifications of the building and the plan of the flat agreed to be purchased by the flat purchaser are annexed to the agreement. Under the agreement, the owner and developer agreed to sell to the Plaintiffs, a residential flat, namely, Flat No.10 with a carpet area admeasuring 109.22 sq.mtrs. on the 10th Floor of the building at and for a consideration of Rs. 74.21 lakhs. Clause 6 of the agreement stipulates that the Floor Space Index available in respect of the property is 4206 sq.mtrs. and no part thereof has been utilized by the owner elsewhere. Under clause 15, each of the flat purchasers furnished their consent to permit the owner to make additions, amendments and alterations to the building plans including raising of additional storeys or structures on the land. Clause 18 similarly provides that without modifying the plan of the flat purchasers, the owner would be entitled to amend, modify or vary the lay out plans or building plans or to consume such FSI as may be available in res





























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