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

2024 Supreme(Bom) 1053

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ., Arif S. Doctor, J.
Munna R. Puthalappa - Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Harilal Mehta & Ors. - Respondents
Appeal (L) No.217 of 2024 In Suit No.1044 of 2007 With Interim Application No.1842 of 2023 With Interim Application (L) No.302 of 2024 In Appeal (L) No.217 of 2024 In Suit No.1044 of 2007 With Interim Application No.1842 of 2023
Decided On : 16-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Vipul J. Shah
For the Respondent: Mr. Amit Tungare, Mr. Piyush Shah a/w Mr. Jay Vora i/by Deval Anja
Mr. S. K. Dhekale, Court Receiver is present.

Consent Terms cannot be unilaterally modified by the court at the instance of a non-party, as it undermines the legal rights of the parties involved.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Consent Terms - The Appellant challenged the directions in the Order dated 22nd December 2023, which were issued at the instance of a third party not involved in the Suit. The Appellant entered into an Agreement with Developers for redevelopment, claiming entitlement to flats and shops. Disputes arose, leading to a Suit for specific performance. The Court Receiver was appointed, and Consent Terms were later established between the Appellant and Developers. The Learned Judge's directions to pay maintenance charges to the Society and handover possession of shops to the Society were contested. (Paras 1-12)

(B) Legal Standing - The Court ruled that the Judge erred in modifying Consent Terms unilaterally and at the instance of a non-party, without affording the Appellant an opportunity to contest. The directions were unsustainable as they effectively granted a decree to a third party without legal proceedings. (Paras 9-10)

(C) Consent Terms Interpretation - The Court found that the Judge misread the Consent Terms, leading to erroneous conclusions regarding payment obligations. The directions to pay maintenance charges and handover possession were set aside. (Paras 10-11)

Findings of Court:
The directions in the Impugned Order were unsustainable and set aside, allowing the Appeal to that extent. The rest of the Order remains unaffected.

Issues: The main issues were the unilateral modification of Consent Terms and the legal standing of the third party in the Suit.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that Consent Terms should not be unilaterally modified by the Judge, especially at the behest of a non-party.

Result: Appeal allowed in part.

JUDGMENT :

The challenge in the present Appeal is limited to only certain directions contained in the Order dated 22nd December 2023 passed by the Learned Judge while disposing off the captioned Suit pursuant to Consent Terms entered into between the Appellant (the Plaintiff in the Suit) and Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Defendants in the Suit). The directions by which the Appellant is aggrieved came to be passed at the instance of Respondent No.3 - Society who is admittedly not a party to the captioned Suit.

2. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is useful to set out the facts, leading to the Impugned Order, which lie within a very narrow compass and are as follows: -

    i. The Appellant, being the owner of a certain plot of land had entered into an Agreement dated 18th March 2005 with Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (being Developers) inter alia for development/redevelopment of the said plot of land. Under the said Agreement, on completion of the development/redevelopment the Appellant was to get two flats and eight shops in the building constructed on the said plot. It appears that thereafter the redevelopment was completed, and a building called 'Paras the Golden Touch' was constructed on the said plot. It is not in dispute that subsequently Respondent No.3 - Society was formed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 as a Co-operative housing society.

    ii. It appears that thereafter disputes and differences arose between the Appellant and Respondent Nos.1 and 2 qua the Appellant's entitlement under the said Agreement. It was thus that the Appellant filed the captioned Suit inter alia for specific performance of the said Agreement claiming to be entitled to two flats and eight shops and basement thereunder. Thereafter, the Court Receiver came to be appointed in respect of two flats, eight shops and basements vide order dated 6th October 2009.

    iii. During the course of the Suit, Respondent No.3 - Society filed a Chamber Summons (being Chamber Summons No.998 of 2017), seeking to be impleaded as a Party Defendant to the Suit since it was the contention of Respondent No.3-Society that there were large outstandings of maintenance and other dues in respect of the said two flats, eight shops and basements which were claimed by the Appellant. It appears that thereafter the Court Receiver filed a report seeking various directions from this Court including as to whether the Court Receiver should pay the dues of Respondent No.3 from the amounts that were lying deposited with the Court Receiver. It is not in dispute that thereafter Respondent No.3 withdrew the Chamber Summons and was granted liberty by an order dated 5th December 2019 to be heard by the Court Receiver in addition to the Appellant and Respondent Nos.1 and 2 qua the issue of maintenance charges due to Respondent No.3-Society in respect of the said flats and shops.

    iv. The Appellant and Respondent Nos.1 and 2 thereafter entered into consent terms dated 21st December 2023 by which all disputes and differences between them in the Suit were resolved. The Consent Terms, inter alia provided as follows, viz.

    "4.5 Plaintiff and Defendants hereby agree, confirm and declare that they have mutually agreed that society maintenance charges till 31st December, 2023 in respect of Shop No.1 to 8 would be payable by the Plaintiff and society maintenance charges in respect of Flat No. A-203 and A-204 would be payable by the Defendants. Plaintiff and Defendants have also agreed that approximately an amount of Rs. 73, 00, 000/- (Rupees Seventy-Three Lakhs Only) is lying with the Court Receiver - Bombay High Court in the Suit account and the same be first utilised towards the payment of Court Receiver Fees/charges and balance amount would be utilised towards payment of society maintenance charges."

    "4.10 Plaintiff and Defendants agree and undertake to this Hon'ble Court that the bills issued by the "Paras the Golden Touch Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd." in the name of "A & M Combines"

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