Disposed

Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt.Ltd. v. Panchali Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

Bombay HC13 Sept 2007CAF/3987/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Bombay High Court heard interlocutory appeals against dismissal of suits filed by housing societies regarding parking spaces. Court continued the interim injunction restraining trespass for 9 weeks pending final disposal.

What did the court decide?

Interim order continuance granted for 9 weeks; appeals listed for final hearing after six weeks.

Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt.Ltd. Vs Panchali Co-Operative… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

ssm

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3985 OF 2007

¶5

IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2184 OF 2007

¶6

Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd....Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Bheem Co-operative Housing Soc. Ltd. ...Respondents.

¶9

Smt. Rajani Iyyer, Sr. Counsel with Mr. V.R.Dhond
i/by M/s. Prakash & Co. for the applicant.

¶10

Mr. G.N. Salunkhe and Mr. S.R. Sharma for the
respondents.

¶11

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3986 OF 2007
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2185 OF 2007

¶12

Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd....Applicant.

¶13

Vs.

¶14

Sahadev Co-Operative Housing
Soc. Ltd....Respondents.

¶15

Smt. Rajani Iyyer, Sr. Counsel with Mr. V.R.Dhond
i/by M/s. Prakash & Co. for the applicant.

¶16

Mr. G.N. Salunkhe and Mr. S.R. Sharma for the
respondents.

¶17

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3987 OF 2007
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2182 OF 2007

¶18

Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd....Applicant.

¶19

Vs.

¶20

Panchali Co-Operative Housing
Soc. Ltd.

¶21

...Respondents.

¶22

( 2 )

¶23

Smt. Rajani Iyyer, Sr. Counsel with Mr. V.R.Dhond
i/by M/s. Prakash & Co. for the applicant.

¶24

Mr. G.N. Salunkhe and Mr. S.R. Sharma for the
respondents.

¶25

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3988 OF 2007
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2181 OF 2007

¶26

Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd.

¶27

...Applicant.

¶28

Vs.

¶29

Yudhishtra Co-Operative Housing
Soc. Ltd.

¶30

...Respondents.

¶31

Smt. Rajani Iyyer, Sr. Counsel with Mr. V.R.Dhond
i/by M/s. Prakash & Co. for the applicant.

¶32

Mr. Umesh Shetty with Miss. Yamini Chandran for
respondent No.1.

¶33

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3989 OF 2007
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2183 OF 2007

¶34

Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd.

¶35

...Applicant.

¶36

Vs.

¶37

Arjun Co-Operative Housing
Soc. Ltd....Respondents.

¶38

Smt. Rajani Iyyer, Sr. Counsel with Mr. V.R.Dhond
i/by M/s. Prakash & Co. for the applicant.

¶39

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.

¶40

DATED : 13th September, 2007

¶41

P.C.

¶42

( 3 )

¶43

1. By impugned order dated 04/04/2007 passed by the
City Civil Judge, Greater Bombay, the suits filed by
the plaintiffs, are dismissed.

¶44

2. The order of injunction dated 18/12/2004 passed in
Notice of Motion No. 1379 of 2004 stood vacated.
However, from time to time pursuant to the respective
submissions made by the parties, the interim orders so
granted has been continued till this date initially by
the trial court and since 14/08/2007 by this Court
pending the admission. The basic prayer clause (a) of
notice of motion 1376 of 2004 is as follows:-

¶45

"a)that pending the hearing and final
disposal of this suit, the Defendants,
their office bearers, committee members,
members, servants, agents or any other
person claiming through them be
restrained by an order of injunction of
this Hon’ble Court from encroaching
upon/trespassing on the suit premises
and/or in any manner
disturbing/obstructing/interfering with
the possession of the Plaintiffs in
respect of the suit premises i.e. 25
number of parking spaces in the stilt
portion of the building by name Panchali,
as more particularly shown in the plan
annexed as Exhibit "A" to the plaint
situated at Indraprastha Enclave,
N.L.Complex, Anand Nagar, Dahisar (East),
Mumbai-400 068.

¶46

3. In the result, the interim order so granted has
been in force since then.

¶47

( 4 )

¶48

4. On 4th September, 2007, this Court has admitted
the appeal and expedited the same with direction to
the appellant to file private paper book.

¶49

5. On request for interim order, the matters are
listed today. The learned counsel appearing for the
respondent while opposing the present interim order
basically contended that in view of the dismissal of
the suit, the balance of convenience lies in their
favour. There would be irreparable loss if the
interim orders so granted, continue, in fact, causing
injustice and hardship to the respective members of
the society. They further submit that to keep such
premises parking space/stilt, locked or sealed like
this, would have of no use.

¶50

6. However, after considering the rival contentions
as raised by the parties and considering the fact that
the interim order has been in force since April, 2004
and remained intact till this date, I am of the view
that there is no reason to vacate the said stay/
injunction till the decision of the first appeal. The
points as raised in the first appeal deals with the
general important aspects, including the plaintiffs or

¶51

( 5 )

¶52

such person right to sell or dispose of the space
under the stilt. Further, whether the provisions of
MOFA restrict rights of the promotors to sell or

¶53

dispose of the parking space; and whether the
development control rules restrict the rights to
dispose of the parking spaces. Apart from this on
merit also the reasoning as given in view of the
grounds raised in the memo of appeal need detail
hearing. Therefore, unless this points are re-heard
as rightly contended by the Senior Counsel appearing
for the appellants, I am of the view that to avoid
further complications, in the matter and basically in
respect of the respective premises in question, the
interim order as granted by this Court on 28/08/2007
shall continue pending the disposal of the present
first appeals.

¶54

7. However, it is made clear that the Authorities
under the respective laws are free to take action as
contemplated in case of any breaches of provisions of
the laws or conditions.

¶55

8. The submission of the learned counsel appearing
for the parties that in the interest of justice, the
matter be listed for final hearing expeditiously is

¶56

( 6 )

¶57

accepted. As already granted, to file paper book
subject to same, appeal be listed for final hearing
after six weeks H.O.B..

¶58

9. Interim order as granted by this Court, however,
shall continue for 9 weeks.

¶59

10. It is further made clear that the appellants
shall not crate any third party right and interest in
the said premises.

¶60

11. In view of this, all the applications are

¶61

disposed of, accordingly.

¶62

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt.Ltd. v. Panchali Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt.Ltd. v. Panchali Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

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

1. Smt. Chhaya Baburao Phadatare and Anr. Vs 1. Shri. Shankar Krishna Kadam and Anr.

M/S. V.M. Sancheti and Co. and Ors. Vs Shri Sohanlal P. Choudhary

Shridhar Shetty Vs Hasib Shah and Anr.

Dilip Khandagale Vs Smt. Shakuntala Bau Kuchekar

Dilip Khandagale Vs Smt. Shakuntala Bau Kuchekar

Vijay R. .Helchetti Vs Smt. Shakuntala Bau Kuchekar