MRIDULA BHATKAR
Vijay Pandurang Vaidya – Appellant
Versus
Credence Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Admit. Notice made returnable forthwith. Notice waived by the learned Counsel for the Respondents. By consent, heard finally at the stage of admission. Perused records and the Judgment.
2. The Appellants have filed a suit against the Respondents who are Builder-Developer for declaration and injunction. The Respondents have constructed a building consisting of residential premises. The Plaintiffs own one flat in the said building. The flat owners in the building have formed a Society. The Society is registered. In the suit, a dispute is in respect of area of car parking in the Society. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Appeal is filed by the Original Plaintiffs.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that though the Trial Court has held that the Respondents are bound to provide a car parking under the stilt and stair-case of the building, they are trying to sell the same illegally. The issue regarding car parking space under the stilt and/ or in the basement of the building is answered in affirmative. The Trial Court gave a finding that the Plaintiffs have no locus standi to file a suit and the Plaintiffs are not entitl
Nahalchand Laloochand Private Ltd vs. Panchali CHS Ltd. (2010) 9 SCC 536
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.