Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Mohammed Ali M. Sali (since deceased) Through Legal Heirs (a) Fatima Nalakath Sahusintavide – Appellant
Versus
Rajaram Chavan Real Estate Private Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. section 37 petitions challenge arbitral refusal of flat possession. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. jda defines tenant rehab, owner's free sale, liens. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. allocation letter demarcates owner's sellable and lien flats. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. developer confirms imminent occupation certificate for purchasers. (Para 12) |
| 5. courts impose status quo pending arbitration on flats. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. arbitrator denies interim possession due undetermined dues. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. courts affirm purchasers' rights, direct arbitral s17 application. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 8. no changed circumstances warrant reconsidering possession refusal. (Para 26 , 27) |
| 9. courts grant fp possession via receiver despite developer claim. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 10. section 37 reviews tribunal orders for perversity only. (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 11. purchasers/owner argue excess security, legitimate sales. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 12. developer defends lien over area, not mere money claim. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 13. affected third parties may appeal s17 orders under s37. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59) |
| 14. interlocut |
Third parties affected by Section 17 interim orders refusing possession have Section 37 locus; tribunal's blanket lien over sold flats perverse ignoring allocation confirmations and developer's knowl....
The court upheld the Developer's right to amend construction plans under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, emphasizing the need to consider balance of convenience and irreparable injury in grantin....
Section 9 jurisdiction limited to arbitration agreement parties for subject-matter preservation; ends upon tribunal constitution unless Section 17 inefficacious; non-signatory third parties cannot in....
The jurisdiction of the Appellate Court dealing with an appeal under Section 37 against the judgment in a petition under Section 34 is more constrained than the jurisdiction of the Court dealing with....
The lack of privity of contract between the Plaintiff and the new developer led to the denial of ad-interim relief.
Third-party purchasers cannot enforce rights against a society after the termination of the developer's agreement; their remedies lie solely with the developer.
The court may exercise jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act if the remedy under Section 17 is found to be inefficacious.
The court emphasized that a plaintiff must demonstrate prima facie ownership, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable harm to secure a temporary injunction.
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
