Disposed

M/S. Bingo and Associates and Ors. v. the Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Mar 2006WP/6050/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought to rescind an agreement for land surrender under TDR arrangements. The Court held that since the matter arises from a contractual dispute or alternative remedies exist, this Court should not exercise extraordinary jurisdiction and disposed of the petition accordingly, while reserving the Respondent Corporation's rights regarding construction without an occupation certificate.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; no relief granted.

M/S. Bingo and Associates and Ors. Vs the Kalyan… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.6050 OF 2005

¶5

 M/s.Bingo & Associates & Ors. ..Petitioners.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

 The Kalyan Dombivli Municipal

¶8

 Corporation & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶9

 Mr.Uday Warunjikar for the Petitioners.

¶10

 Mr.A.S.Rao for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶11

CORAM :F.I.REBELLO, J. AND

¶12

DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD,J.

¶13

 2nd March, 2006.

¶14

 P.C.:

¶15

 The Petitioners had entered into an

¶16

 agreement with Respondent No.1 by which a part of
 land reserved for a garden was to be handed over to

¶17

 the Respondent Corporation. Pursuant to the
 agreement, the Respondent Corporation has given TDR

¶18

 for the plot to be surrendered in favour of the
 Petitioners to the extent of 50%. The Petitioners

¶19

¶20

 availed of the TDR by construction on a part of the
 land which was to be excluded. The Planning
 Authority in so far as the excluded land is
 concerned had submitted a proposal for deleting
 that part from the proposed reservation for a
 garden and instead has planned it for the purposes
 of residence. By the present Petition what the
 Petitioners in fact seeks to do is rescind the
 agreement. If that be the case, it is not a fit
 case for this Court to exercise the extra-ordinary
 jurisdiction. It would be open to the Petitioners
 to pursue such alternative remedies as they are
 entitled to. The Petition is disposed of
 accordingly.

¶21

 It is made clear that it will be open for
 the Respondent Corporation in respect of the
 building constructed by the Petitioners if they do
 not have occupation certificate to take such steps
 in law which they are entitled.

¶22

(F.I.REBELLO, J.)

¶23

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

M/S. Bingo and Associates and Ors. v. the Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Bingo and Associates and Ors. v. the Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation and Ors.

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

Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Sangh Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Sugar and Ors.

Jayant Babulal Shah Vs Vasupujya Bhagwan andANR.

Bharat Udhyog Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Maharashtra Rajya Suraksha Rakshak and Gen. Kamagar Union Vs Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay and Thane District and Ors.

Hari Darshan Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Bombay and 2 Ors.

Bhaskar Changoji Deotare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.