HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SHRI.OMPRAKASH S/O MURLIDHAR SINGHANIA – Appellant
Versus
SHRI.ASHOK S/O OTANMAL CHHABRIA AND ANOTHER – Respondent
AO 739/2006
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 739 of 2006
Omprakash s/o Murlidhar Singhania .. Appellant
versus
Ashok S/o Otanmal Chhabria & Anr. .. Respondents
...
Mr.S.K. Chaurasia i/b A.M. Saraogi for the appellant.
CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J
CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J
CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J
DATED : 30th November 2006
DATED : 30th November 2006
DATED : 30th November 2006
P.C.:
P.C.:
P.C.:
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated
23rd August 2006 passed by the trial court refusing the
injunction.
3. The appellant filed a suit against the
respondent for an injunction restraining them from
2
carrying out construction on the plot of land bearing
U.No.19. According to the appellant,the respondent no.1
agreed to sell to him some premises on the first floor of
the proposed building on plot no.U.No.19. Respondent
carried out the construction but the construction was
demolished by the Ulhasnagar Municipal Council on the
ground that construction was made without prior
permission. The respondent now wants to carry out the
construction after obtaining the necessary permission of
the Ulhasnagar Municipal Council. I fail to see that in
these circumstances how the appellant is entitled to an
injunction restraining the respondent from carrying out
the construction. If the appellant has a valid and
subsistent agreement of sale in his favour, he can sue
for specific performance. On the other hand he is suing
for an injunction to prevent the respondent from carrying
out any construction. Such an injunction, if granted
would prevent the respondent from carrying out his part
of the contract and allotting the premises to the
respondent. In my view, the object of seeking the
injunction clearly is colateral and not to enforce the
contract but to prevent any lawful construction for
collateral purposes. For these reasons, there is no
merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed summarily.
3
(D.G. KARNIK, J)
(D.G. KARNIK, J)
(D.G. KARNIK, J)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.