The main legal point established is that the jurisdiction of the civil court is not barred under Section 42 of the Slum Act for matters that do not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act.

S.C. Gupte, J.

1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Plaintiff for appointment of Court receiver and interim injunction against the Defendants restraining them from acting upon or giving effect to the development agreement entered into between Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and Defendant No. 26. The Plaintiff, who is a developer and who claims to have entered into a development agreement with Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and Defendant Nos. 7 to 25 for development of the suit property, has filed the present suit for specific performance of that development agreement. The Defendants objected to the jurisdiction of this Court to hear the suit in view of the provisions of Section 42 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. Accordingly, a preliminary issue of jurisdiction was framed by this Court. That issue is being decided by this order. The short facts of the Plaintiff's case, relevant for the determination of the present controversy, may be noted as follows:

2. The suit property is a notified slum within the meaning of the Maharashtra slum (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 ("Slum Act"). The slum dwellers were desirous of developing the suit property under a slum rehabilitation scheme ("SRA Scheme"). On about 10 August 2003, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who are respectively the association of eligible slum dwellers and registered Society of slum dwellers/members, occupying the suit property, entered into a development agreement, through their representatives being Defendant Nos. 7 to 25, with the Plaintiff. Pursuant to the development agreement, Defendant Nos. 7 to 25 also executed an irrevocable power of attorney dated 10 August 2003 in favour of the Plaintiff authorizing the Plaintiff to do all acts necessary for implementation of the SRA Scheme. The Plaintiff claims to have received irrevocable written consents of 95% of the members of Defendant No. 2 Society residing on the suit property.

3. After execution of the development agreement, by a letter dated 20 September 2003, the Plaintiff submitted the SRA Scheme to the authorities under the Slum Act. It is the Plaintiff's case that despite following up the matter with Defendant Nos. 27 and 28, the issuance of Annexure - II on the SRA Scheme submitted by the Plaintiff was delayed. It is also the Plaintiff's case that the Plaintiff has duly complied with its part of the obligations under the development agreement and has also been ready and willing to comply with all its remaining obligations under the agreement.

4. By its letter dated 11 August 2009, Defendant No. 2 terminated the development agreement executed with the Plaintiff. On 20 September 2009, Defendant No. 2 called a general body meeting for appointment of a new developer in substitution of the Plaintiff.

5. The Plaintiff, in the premises, filed an arbitration petition, being Arbitration Petition No. 759 of 2009, seeking an injunction against holding of this meeting. This Court by its order dated 18 September 2009 did not grant any interim relief but observed that the decision, if any, taken in this meeting would be subject to the order that may be passed in the petition.

6. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 proceeded to hold the meeting and appointed Defendant No. 26 as the developer for development of the suit property under any SRA Scheme. Defendant No. 26 claimed to have obtained consent of more than 70% of eligible slum dwellers for its SRA Project. A general body meeting of the members of Defendant No. 2 was convened thereupon by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the purpose of ascertaining whether the Plaintiff or Defendant No. 26 enjoyed the support of not less than 70% of the slum dwellers.

7. The Plaintiff challenged the decision of the Registrar calling such meeting by filing a petition, being Writ Petition No. 679 of 2010. This Court dismissed the Writ Petition. Around the same time, the Defendants moved an application before the high-powered committee seek