Disposed

M/S. Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt. Ltd., and Anr. v. Smt. Saroj Indrashikumar Dube and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Sept 2010CRA/235/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a civil revision application concerning the allotment of floor mill premises. The applicant-owners were directed to construct and allot the premises to the respondent-rehabilitant, paying rent in lieu until possession was handed over, while also withdrawing the trial suits.

What did the court decide?

1. Allotment of floor mill premises to respondent. 2. Construction and handover of possession within four months. 3. Payment of rent. 4. Withdrawal of suits.

M/S. Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt. Ltd… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.235 OF 2010

¶3

M/s. Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v.

¶4

Smt. Saroj I. Dube and Ors.

¶5

...Applicants.

¶6

...Respondents.

¶7

Mr. Cherag Balsara a/w Vishal Kanade i/by M/s. Divya Shah Associates, advs., for the Applicants. Mr. Pravindersingh Sethi, adv. for the respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr.J.G.Reddy, adv. For the R.No.4.

¶8

CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 23rd September, 2010

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

1 As per the directions given on the last date, the revision

¶11

applicants/original defendant nos.1 and 2, who are the developers

¶12

have produced the copy of the sanction map of the building. Even the C.E.O., SRA/respondent no.4 has also produced complete record for

¶13

the perusal of the Court. Copy of sanctioned plan produced by the developer fully tallies with the sanctioned in the file of CEO. The location of the floor mill is shown by red colour in the copy of the sanctioned plan produced by the developer. Said copy of the sanctioned plan is marked as 'X' for Identification. Location of the floor mill is abutting six meter wide internal road of the area under development. Admittedly, plaintiff no.2, Siddhanath, who is the

¶14

¶15

respondent no.2 in this revision application is eligible for rehabilitation in lieu of floor mill, which he was running. Plaintiff no.1 Saroj, who is daughter in law of the plaintiff no.2 Siddhanath, claims premises for floor mill on behalf of her father in law Siddhanath, to which the defendants have no objection. As the location of the floor mill is now clearly shown in the sanctioned plan, the learned counsel for both the parties, after taking instructions from their respective parties, agree that this revision application may be disposed off with the following directions:

¶16

(i) The premises for the floor mill shown in the red colour in the copy of the sanctioned plan marked 'X' shall be allotted to the plaintiff no.1 Saroj Indreshkumar Dube, on behalf of the plaintiff no.2 Siddhanath. The defendant nos.1 and 2 shall complete the construction of the said premises and hand over possession to the plaintiff no.1 within four months from this date.

¶17

(ii) Defendant nos.1 and 2 shall also pay agreed rent in lieu of the said premises from the date of agreement till the date of handing over the possession of the said premises to the plaintiff no.1. If any amount is already paid on this account, balance of arrears shall be paid to her within two weeks.

¶18

¶19

(iii) Plaintiff shall withdraw the suits from the trial Court.

¶20

(iv) It is made clear that this Court has not decided question of jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971.

¶21

2 Revision application stands disposed off accordingly.

¶22

(J.H.BHATIA, J.)

M/S. Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt. Ltd., and Anr. v. Smt. Saroj Indrashikumar Dube and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt. Ltd., and Anr. v. Smt. Saroj Indrashikumar Dube 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

Sou. Sonali Sunil Kangane Vs Shri Sunil Sakharam Kangane

Mrs. Ssmita Rahul More Vs Shri. Rahul Mohanrao More

Maruti Mahadeo Durgawale Vs Indutao Bajirao Pawar

Anusaya Jaysing Vayadande Vs Shrirang Aabaji Vayadande and Ors.

Anusaya Jaysing Vayadande Vs Shrirang Aabaji Vayadande and Ors.

M/S. Lake View Developers Vs Vilas Ramchandra Pawar