Dismissed

M/S Ishwar Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Ashok Chadha and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Jul 2008CAS/521/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition against an order declaring a club sale null and void was rejected. The court held no case existed to entertain the review following the Supreme Court's dismissal of the similar SLPs. The court also dismissed claims regarding FSI availability and directed that disputes over plot ownership and area be decided in appropriate proceedings on merits.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Application is rejected with clarifications that disputes regarding plot ownership must be decided in appropriate proceedings.

IN	THE HIGH COURT	OF JUDICATURE AT	BOMBAY
	APPELLATE	JU	RISDICTION
	CIVIL APPLICATION	NO. 521 OF	2008
	IN SECOND APPEAL	NO. 38 OF	2007
M/s. Ltd. and ors.	Ishwar	Constructions ..Petitioners	Pvt.
V	s.
Ashok Chadha an	d ors.	..Respondents
Mr.	K.Y.	Mandlik for	petitioners.
Mr. Y.R. 23, 24,	Naik for respondent 26 to 28, 30,	nos.2 to 11, 13 32 to 34, 36	to 21, and 38.
	CORAM	: B.H. MA	RLAPALLE,J.
	Date	: July 21,	2008.
P.C.:
1.	Heard Mr. Mandlik the learned	counsel for the
petitioners	and Mr. Naik	the learned counsel	for the
respondent nos.2 30, 32 to 34, 36 a	to 11, 13 to 21, 23, 24, 26 to 28, nd 38.
2.	By this application the petit	ioners are
praying	for modification of	the order dated	4/5/2007
and more particu	larly they pray for deletion of the
following sentenc	e in para 15 of the said order:-

THE
HIGH
COURT

OF
JUDICATURE
AT

BOMBAY

APPELLATE

RISDICTION

CIVIL
APPLICATION

NO.
521
OF

2008

IN
SECOND
APPEAL

NO.
38
OF

2007

M/s.
Ltd. and ors.

Ishwar

Constructions
..Petitioners

Pvt.

Ashok Chadha an

d ors.

..Respondents

Mr.

K.Y.

Mandlik
for

petitioners.

Mr.
Y.R.
23,
24,

Naik
for
respondent
26
to
28,
30,

nos.2
to
11,
13
32
to
34,
36

to
21,
and
38.

CORAM

:
B.H.
MA

RLAPALLE,J.

Date

:
July
21,

2008.

P.C.:

Heard Mr. Mandlik the learned

counsel for the

petitioners

and
Mr.
Naik

the
learned
counsel

for
the

respondent nos.2
30, 32 to 34, 36 a

to 11, 13 to 21, 23, 24, 26 to 28,
nd 38.

By this application the petit

ioners are

praying

for
modification
of

the
order
dated

4/5/2007

and more particu

larly they pray for deletion of the

following sentenc

e in para 15 of the said order:-

	"The sale		of	health	c	lubs	in	favou	r of
defendant	no.2		and	his	wife	on	29/9	/1996	is
hereby	declared a	s	n	ull	and	void		ab	initio."

"The
sale

health

lubs

favou

r
of

defendant

no.2

and

his

wife

29/9

/1996

hereby

declared
a

ull

and

void

initio."

3.		Admittedly, the	said order w	as the	subject
matter	of	challenge	before	the	Suprem	e	Court	in	SLP
(Civil)	Nos.2	0993 and	20840	of	2007	and		both	these

Admittedly, the

said order w

as the

subject

matter

challenge

before

the

Suprem

Court

SLP

(Civil)

Nos.2

0993
and

20840

2007

and

both

these

5.	Ho	wever, it was sub	mitted b	y Mr. Mandlik tha	t
the	bungalow	of	petiti	oner no.2	(original		defendant
no.2)	stands	on a		plot area	admeasur	ing	929.30
sq.mtrs.	and	the same	has	been pur	chased by	him	under
the	Sale Deed	registered	on	11/5/1985.	He	claims	that
he	has not	consumed	the	total FSI	available	on	his
bungalow	plot	(10,000	sq.mt	rs.) and	some FSI	is	still

wever, it was sub

mitted b

y Mr. Mandlik tha

the

bungalow

petiti

oner
no.2

(original

defendant

no.2)

stands

on
a

plot
area

admeasur

ing

929.30

sq.mtrs.

and

the
same

has

been
pur

chased
by

him

under

the

Sale
Deed

registered

11/5/1985.

claims

that

has
not

consumed

the

total
FSI

available

his

bungalow

plot

(10,000

sq.mt

rs.)
and

some
FSI

still

available.		Mr. N	aik	the	learned	counsel		appearing
for	the	respondents	disputes		this	cont	ention	and
states	that	the defendant	no.2		is not	the	owner	of
plot	area	admeasuring	929.30		sq.mtrs.	This	is	an
issue	which	will have	to	be	decided	in		appropriate
proceedings	and	it cannot	be		considered	in	this	review
petition.		At the same	time	,	in suc	h proce	edings	the
issue	regardi	ng the exact	ar	ea	under	the	ownersh	ip of
the	defendant	no.2 will	have	to	be	considered	on	its

available.

Mr.
N

aik

the

learned

counsel

appearing

for

the

respondents

disputes

this

cont

ention

and

states

that

the
defendant

no.2

is
not

the

owner

plot

area

admeasuring

929.30

sq.mtrs.

This

issue

which

will
have

decided

appropriate

proceedings

and

it
cannot

considered

this

review

petition.

At
the
same

time

in
suc

h
proce

edings

the

issue

regardi

ng
the
exact

under

the

ownersh

ip
of

the

defendant

no.2
will

have

considered

its

M/S Ishwar Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Ashok Chadha and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ishwar Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Ashok Chadha 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

Pramod Raoji Doshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Pramod Ravaji Doshi

The State of Maharashatra and Ors. Vs Shri.Bapu Laxman Kharat

Suday Narayan Kargutkar Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Anr.

Suday Narayan Kargutkar Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Anr.

Nagnath Kalyanappa Kadage Vs Sau. Dasubai Nagnath Kadage and Anothers