Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

These Appeals arise from a judgment of the Learned Single Judge dated 16 September 2013 in a Motion that was taken out by the First Respondent in a suit seeking enforcement of a redevelopment agreement. An overwhelming majority of the existing members of the co-operative society having acted in fulfillment of the agreement between the society and the developer and having vacated their premises to facilitate redevelopment, the Learned Single Judge issued the impugned directions in the suit of the developer. These directions are intended to ensure that the non-consenting members of the society (14 Appellants in the first appeal and 11 in the second ) do not obstruct the process of redevelopment. For convenience of reference the directions of the Learned Single Judge in the Motion are extracted herein below :

“(i) The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, is appointed Receiver in respect of the Suit Property;

(ii) The Plaintiff Developer shall on or before 3rd October, 2013, furnish the Bank Guarantee to the Defendant No. 28 Society as provided in the Suit Agreements and also make payment to the non-co-operating members as agreed under the Suit Agreements, on or before 3rd October, 2013;

(iii) The Defendant No. 28 Society shall, on 3rd October, 2013, hand over all the flats in possession of the Society to the Court Receiver who shall in turn after confirming that the Plaintiff has furnished the agreed Bank Guarantee to the Defendant No.23, hand over possession of the same to the Plaintiff Developer for the purpose of commencing the redevelopment project;

(iv) The non-co-operating members who have not executed the Tripartite Agreements shall execute the Tripartite Agreements on or before 3rd October, 2013;

(v) The non-co-operating members who have retained possession of their flats shall on or before 3rd October, 2013, hand over possession of their respective flats to the Court Receiver and the Court Receiver shall in turn hand over possession of the same to the Plaintiff Developer for the purpose of commencing the redevelopment project.

(vi) In the event of any non-co-operating member/s not handing over possession of their respective flat/s to the Court Receiver as directed herein, to enable the Court Receiver to further hand over the same to the Plaintiff Developer, the Court Receiver shall take forcible possession of the flat/s from such non-co-operating member/s or any person found in possession of such flat/s, if necessary with police assistance, and hand over the same to the Plaintiff Developer.”

2. On 22 September 2009 the Twenty-eighth Defendant (a co-operative housing society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960) issued a tender inviting offers from developers for redevelopment of the property, representing that : (i) the area of the plot as reflected in the property register card was 5474 sq. mtrs. and (ii) the buildings of the society contained 26 flats each with a carpet area of 280 sq. ft. and 94 flats each with a carpet area of 220 sq.ft; the aggregate carpet area of the units comprised in the building being 27,960 sq. ft.. The co-operative society sought for its members an additional carpet area of 180 sq. ft. (free of costs). Intending bidders were called upon to submit their bids for other commercial terms.

3. On 9 October 2009 the Plaintiff who is the First Respondent to these Appeals submitted a bid on the basis that the plot area was 5474 sq. mtrs. On 6 June 2010 a Special General Body Meeting (SGBM) of the society was held to discuss the offers of three shortlisted developers. Prior to the meeting the society had circulated the names of the shortlisted developers and in response to a request of the society, ninety members had indicated the name of the Plaintiff as a developer of their choice. At the SGBM, the majority of the members present and voting recommended the acceptance of the offer of the Plaintiff. On 27 June 2010 at a further SGBM 1