Dismissed

Mr. John Rodrigues and 3 Ors., v. the Shangri-La Apartments Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Rep. through Its Chairperson

Bombay HC19 Oct 2013WP/641/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed against confirmation of impugned order dismissing appeal and permitting injunction in favor of co-op society over pipeline layout that would interfere with petitioners rights. Dismissed as no interference needed in writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and the impugned orders below were upheld.

Mr. John Rodrigues and 3 Ors., Vs the Shangri-La… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 641 OF 2013

¶3

MR. JOHN RODRIGUES AND 3 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus THE SHANGRI-LA APARTMENTS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. REP. THROUGH ITS CHAIRPERSON ... Respondents

¶4

... Respondents

¶5

Shri Pravin N. Faldessai, Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶6

Coram:R. M. SAVANT, J.

¶7

Date:19th October, 2013

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 31/07/2013, passed by the learned District Judge, Panaji by which order, the order passed by the Trial Court dated 8/11/2012 came to be confirmed and the Appeal filed by the petitioners being Misc. Civil Appeal No.113/2012 came to be dismissed.

¶10

The plaintiff i.e. the respondent herein is a Co-operative Society comprising of four buildings A,B,C & D. The plaintiff has filed the suit in question for restraining the defendants from interfering with the laying of the pipeline from the sump of the society to the overhead tank and from the overhead tank to the building B. The suit is premised on the ground that there is a water scarcity in so far as building B is concerned. Apprehending that the defendants no.1 to 4

¶11

¶12

i.e. the petitioners herein would interfere with the laying of the said pipeline that an application for temporary injunction came to be filed for restraining the defendants from interfering with the laying of the additional pipeline to the water tank already existing and from obstructing the supply of water to the occupants of the building B of the plaintiff Society.

¶13

The record discloses that prior to the instant application, the respondent-Society had filed an application for police protection by invoking Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code in the matter of giving police aid to the Society in order to instal new water connection to connect the water supply to the building B of the plaintiff. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court principally on the ground that such police protection could not be granted as the same was not in aid of execution of any order passed by the Court. However, in the said order the Court also observed that grant of such a relief would virtually amount to granting the relief sought in the suit by virtue of prayer clause (aa). Against the said order dated 8/08/2011 rejecting the grant of police aid the respondent-Society filed Writ Petition in this Court being Writ Petition No.742/2011. In the said Writ Petition, the attention of this Court was brought to the subsequent event where the respondent-Society had obtained permission for an additional pipeline. In the light of the said subsequent event, this Court by order dated 2/03/2012 disposed of the said Writ Petition, however,

¶14

¶15

observed that it would be open for the petitioners to file an appropriate application for the relief sought. This is how the instant application for injunction has been filed by the respondent-Society which is the plaintiff. The said application for injunction has been opposed inter alia on two grounds; the first ground being that an application for police aid having already been rejected the instant application was not maintainable and secondly that the relief if granted would result in the main relief in the suit being granted. Both the Courts below i.e. the Trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court have not countenanced the said objections raised on behalf of the petitioners. In so far as the first objection is concerned both the Courts below have observed that it is pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court on the basis of a subsequent event that the instant application has been filed. Both the Courts below have also observed that the relief sought was for an injunction so as to prevent the defendants from interfering with the laying of the pipeline so as to mitigate hardship to the residents of the building B so far as water supply is concerned. Both the Courts therefore have concurrently held that the respondent-Society would be entitled to the relief sought by way of such application.

¶16

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners i.e. the original defendants no.1 to 3 Shri Phaldesai would seek to reiterate the case of the said defendants in the Courts below and seek to raise the two contentions which were raised by the defendants in the

¶17

¶18

Courts below. In the light of the finding recorded by the Courts below as regards the said two contentions, in my view, no interdiction in the writ jurisdiction is called for with the impugned orders. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶19

R. M. SAVANT, J.

¶20

Mr. John Rodrigues and 3 Ors., v. the Shangri-La Apartments Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Rep. through Its Chairperson

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. John Rodrigues and 3 Ors., v. the Shangri-La Apartments Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Rep. through Its Chairperson

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

Dena Bank through Its Chief Manager and Constituted Attorney Jayaram v. Shenoy Vs Mr. Thomas Salvador Menezes and Anr.

Dena Bank through Its Chief Manager and Constituted Attorney Jayaram v. Shenoy Vs Mr. Thomas Salvador Menezes and Anr.

Shivneri Co-Operative Housing Ltd., Vs Shri. Vassudev Subray Naik Khavante and Anr.

Bastena D'Sa Gonsalves Alias Sebasteana D'Sa Vs Maria Domingo Pereira and Anr.

Shri. Kushnaba Babani Parab Vs Shri. Pundalik Yeshwant Nhavi @ Halankar

Shri. Kushnaba Babani Parab Vs Shri. Pundalik Yeshwant Nhavi @ Halankar