Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sandeep V.Marne
Ashapura Options Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Ashapura Developers – Respondent
Sandeep V. Marne, J.
1) Plaintiffs have filed the present Interim Application seeking temporary injunction for restoration of possession of the suit premises during pendency of the Suit and to restrain the Defendants from interfering with Plaintiffs’ possession of the suit premises. Plaintiffs have also sought injunction against the Defendants from selling, alienating, or creating third party rights in respect of the suit premises during pendency of the Suit. Plaintiffs have also sought prayer for appointment of Court Receiver for taking physical possession of the suit premises and for handing over the same to the them.
2) Plaintiffs have instituted the present Suit under Section 6 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , 1963 (the Act). The Suit is premised on Plaintiffs’ claim of possession of suit premises comprising of units bearing Nos. 901, 903 and 904 admeasuring in aggregate 16,096 sq.ft. (super built-up area) equivalent to 11,268 carpet area in the building named ‘Hallmark Business Plaza’ situated at CTS No. 629 (p) of Village Bandra (East), Taluka-Andheri in the Mumbai Suburban District at Sant Dnyaneshwar Marg, Opp. Gurunanak Hospital, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 alongw
Possession and temporary injunction claims under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, providing summary protection against unlawful dispossession, established by continuous occupation even in absenc....
(1) There is a difference between concept of ‘possession’ and ‘mere presence in property’.(2) Test of proving possession cannot be different for Plaintiff seeking injunction against defendant to prot....
Watchman or caretaker's occupation of outhouse does not constitute settled possession of entire property under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; plaintiffs' prior possession proved by repair works entit....
In Section 6 Specific Relief Act suit, plaintiff must prove settled possession on exact dispossession date against specific defence of third-party prior occupation; trial court's perverse ignorance o....
The court reaffirmed that in suits under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the focus is solely on possession and unlawful dispossession, not on the title of the property.
Settled possession cannot be deemed unlawful solely due to resignation; eviction requires due process of law.
A family member of a tenant cannot claim legal rights to property or file for an injunction without asserting ownership or interest, demonstrating a lack of enforceable obligation under the law.
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
