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

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)

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