Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
K.K. Tated, J.
Karan Group Builders And Developers & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Dindoshi Vrindavan C.h.s. Ltd & Ors. - Respondents
Appeal From Order (St) No. 10281 of 2019
Decided On : 02-05-2019
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 14 - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act - Sections 164 and 91 - Re-Development Of Suit Property - Learned senior counsel for plaintiffs submits that in present proceeding plaintiff No -2 entered into redevelopment agreement with defendant No -1 society - He submits that as per said re-development agreement parties agreed that plaintiff No -2 completed redevelopment within 18 months - He submits that thereafter supplementary re-development agreement entered into between defendant No -1 on one hand and plaintiff Nos-1 and 2 on other hand - He submits that as per said supplementary re-development agreement it was agreed between parties that re-development project to be completed within months on same terms and conditions - He submits that as per agreement plaintiffs agreed to provide additional area to members of defendant No -1 - They agreed that they will provide carpet area as per approved plan of BMC in newly constructed building to all existing members of society - He further submits that they have to complete project within stipulated time only after issuing additional IOD - Held, Therefore there is no question of granting any relief in present proceeding - Hence appeal from order is required to be dismissed with costs - Heard both sides at length - It is to be noted that in present proceeding defendant No -1s building was in dilapidated condition - Hence they decided to re-develop same after following due process of law - Plaintiff executed development agreement and assured that he will complete development of building - As it remained on part of plaintiffs to complete re-development within time he entered into supplementary agreement - In spite of that plaintiffs failed and neglected to carry out re-development of suit property - Apart from that defendant failed to obtain permission from MHADA for re-development - Not only that plaintiff failed to obtain sanction plan from corporation to carry out redevelopment activities - This itself shows that plaintiff is not interested in carrying out re-development agreement whereas on other hand defendant No -2 executed MOU - Thereafter immediately obtained NOC from MHADA by paying premium not only that defendant No -2 also obtained sanction plan from corporation - Members of Society vacated suit premises in month on vacating entire building same was demolished in month for carrying out construction activities - Order accordingly.
JUDGMENT
K. K. Tated, J. - Heard.
2. For the sake of convenience, the nomenclature of the parties will be referred to hereinafter as stated in Special Civil Suit No.2913 of 2017 i.e. appellant as plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and respondents as defendant Nos.1 and 2.
3. By this Appeal from Order, plaintiffs are challenging the order dated 11.3.2019 passed by Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay in Notice of Motion No.3511 of 2017 in Special Civil Suit No.2913 of 2017 declining any interim relief in favour of the plaintiffs.
4. In the present proceedings, plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No.2913 of 2017 for injunction and declaration with following prayers:
a. That this Hon''ble court be pleased to pass order, judgment and decree that the redevelopment agreement dated 19/02/2011 and supplementary redevelopment agreement dated 20/05/2015 annexed at Exhibit "A Colly" are valid, subsisting and binding upon the defendant No.1 and its members.
b. That this Hon''ble Court be pleased to pass order, judgment and decree that consent letter and consent for redevelopment agreement executed by all individual members of the society are valid, subsisting and binding upon the defendant No.1 and its members.
c. That this Hon''ble court be pleased to declare that the notice dated 19/09/2017 annexed hereto at Exhibit "D" is null & void and further not binding upon plaintiffs in any manner of whatsoever nature.
d. That this Hon''ble court be pleased to declare that if any agreement, development or redevelopment agreement, assignment deed, the relinquishment deed or any deeds and documents are executed by the defendant No.1 with the defendant No.2 or with any third person or entity after the execution of redevelopment agreement dated 19/02/2011 and supplementary redevelopment agreement dated 20/05/2015 with plaintiffs in pursuance to suit property i.e. "Survey Nos.31 and 39, CTS No.107 and 10(Part), admeasuring 700.25 Sq. Mts. Or thereabouts, together with the building No.15/A-B, known as Dindoshi Vrindavan Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. lying and being situated at Shivdham Complex, MHADA, General A.K. Vaidya Marg, Dindoshi, Malad (East), Mumbai 400097." are null and void and further not binding upon plaintiffs in any manner of whatsoever nature.
e. That this Hon''ble court be pleased to pass a permanent order of injunction restraining the defendant No.1, its agent, servant, authorized representative, committee member or any person representing through or on behalf of defendant No.1 to execute any agreement, development or redevelopment agreement, assignment deed, relinquishment deed, sale deed, joint venture agreement or any deeds and documents and creating third party rights, passing any resolution and/or handing over the possession of the suit property i.e. "Survey No.31 and 39, CTS No.107 and 10(Part), admeasuring 700.25 Sq. Mts. Or thereabouts, together with the building No.15/A-B, known as Dindoshi Vrindavan Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. lying and being situated at Shivdham Complex, MHADA, Gegneral A.K. Vaidya Marg, Dindoshi, Malad (East), Mumbai 400097." to the defendant No.2 or any third person or entity without obtaining express consent in writing from plaintiffs.
In alternate to this prayer :
That this Hon''ble court be pleased to pass a permanent order of injunction restraining the defendant No.2 that if any agreement, development or redevelopment agreement, assignment deed, relinquishment deed, sale deed, joint venture agreement or any deeds and documents are executed by the defendant No.1 with the defendant No.2 in respect of the suit property i.e. "Survey Nos.31 and 39, CTS No.107 and 10(Part), admeasuring 700.25 Sq. Mts. Or thereabouts, together with the building No.15/A-B, known as Dindoshi Vrindavan Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. lying and being situated at Shivdham Complex, MHADA, Gegneral A.K. Vaidya Marg, Dindoshi, Malad (East), Mumbai 400097." then the defendant No.2 should not act on the same without obtaining express consent in writing from plaintiffs.
Interim
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
