Disposed

The Deputy Collector and Competent Authority and Ors. v. M/S.Deshmukh Builders Pvt.Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Feb 2006CAW/136/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Application challenging the disposal of a petition regarding allotment of flats. Court declined claim for price difference but extended the allotment deadline to 31.3.2006 based on respondent's assurance.

What did the court decide?

Extension of time limit for allotment of flats granted up to 31.3.2006; prayer for price difference dismissed.

The Deputy Collector and Competent Authority and Ors. Vs… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 136 OF 2006
 IN

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO. 1216 OF 2005

¶4

 The State of Maharashtra and Ors.... Applicants
 Versus
 M/s. Deshmukh Builders Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondents

¶5

 Mr. N.P. Deshpande, A.G.P. for Applicants.

¶6

 Mr. C.J. Sawant, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.D.
 Soni i/by Ram & Co. for Respondents.

¶7

CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &
DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD,JJ.
DATED : FEBRUARY 03, 2006
 P.C.

¶8

 . The Petition was disposed of by order dated
 8.6.2005. By that order, the respondents had to

¶9

 make allotment on or before 31.12.2005 and on
 failure to make allotment or the Government’s
 nominee failing to pay the price of the flat and
 enter into an agreement with builder before the
 said date, the flats in question were to stand
 released from the reservation.

¶10

 . By the present application, the applicants point

¶11

 out that only 10 nominees have entered into an
 agreement. With regard to 43 flats, nobody has
 come forward and in these circumstances, they have

¶12

¶13

 prayed that the respondents be directed to pay to
 the applicants, difference between the market price
 and the Government determined price or in the
 alternative to extend the limit by six more months
 i.e. upto 30.6.2006.

¶14

 . The order of this court was self explanatory,
 self operative and clear. In other words, failure
 of the respondents to make allotment or entering
 into an agreement with the builder within specified
 period, the flats stood dereserved and were to be
 released from reservation.

¶15

 . Considering that, it really would not be
 possible to consider the reliefs as prayed for by
 the respondent herein. Prayer Clause (a) would not
 be maintainable. In so far as Prayer Clause (b) is
 concerned, after hearing the parties, we are
 inclined to extend the period upto 31.3.2006. The
 time granted by this court by order dated 8.6.2005,
 is extended upto 31.3.2006. This extension is
 given on the assurance on behalf of the
 respondents, that they will not ask for any further
 time. With the above observations, application

¶16

¶17

 stands disposed of.

¶18

(F.I. REBELLO,J.)

¶19

(DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.)

The Deputy Collector and Competent Authority and Ors. v. M/S.Deshmukh Builders Pvt.Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Deputy Collector and Competent Authority and Ors. v. M/S.Deshmukh Builders Pvt.Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.G. Bawane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Abdul Latif Nabi Saheb Bagwan and Ors. Vs Miraj Municipal Council, and Anr.

Dr. Amol B. Nade and Ors. Vs Mah.'Tra Institute of Medical Edu.and Research and Ors.

Sarvodaya Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Ors. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Manikchand Motilal Kataria and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Abdul Shakoor Muzaffar Ghansar Vs the Surpanch Group Gram Panchayat and Ors.