The High Court of Bombay dismissed the appeal arising from an ad-interim order regarding the transfer of a reserved plot, noting that the Notice of Motion remained pending and no case for interference was established.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
appeal 133-2013
1/1
sat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO. 133 OF 2013 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2291 OF 2011 IN
SUIT NO. 1889 OF 2011
Surendra Narvekar of Mumbai
...Appellant
vs
M/s.Kukreja Construction Company & Anr.
..Respondents
Mr.J.J. Pochkhanwalla, Senior Advocate with Ms.Sudha Chauhan i/b. Mr.Vinod Juwale for the Appellant.
Mr. P.K. Samdhani i/b. M/s.RMG Law Associates for the Respondent No.1.
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, AND S.C. GUPTE, JJ.
10 JULY 2013
P.C. :
The appeal arises from an order of a learned Single Judge dated 5 September 2011. The impugned order is an ad-interim order and the Notice of Motion is still pending. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere in Appeal at this stage and particularly, having regard to the fact that though the impugned order permits the original plaintiffs to take the TDR in respect of the reserved plot, the Court has directed that the plaintiffs shall not exploit the same in any manner whatsoever. No case for interference is made out. The Court has also been informed that the Motion has appeared on board before the learned Single Judge for final hearing.
The appeal is dismissed.
(S.C. Gupte, J.)
Surendra Narvekar
M/s.Kukreja Construction Company & Anr.
D.Y. Chandrachud
S.C. Gupte
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
