Disposed

Manisha Heights Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. M/S. Manisha Developers and 6 Others

Bombay HC20 Aug 2015NMS/1537/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a notice of motion, the single-judge court recorded undertakings from defendants to restrict construction to permissible limits, adhere to municipal regulations, and complete obligations under the Ownership Flats Act by March 2016, while granting plaintiffs liberty to prosecute infringement claims.

What did the court decide?

Court accepted undertakings from defendants to restrict construction, adhere to norms, and complete obligations by 31.03.2016; granted plaintiffs liberty to apply for further reliefs and initiate proc

Manisha Heights Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

2-NMSL-153-15-SL-42-15.DOC

¶2

Sharayu.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 153 OF 2015

¶4

IN

¶5

SUIT (L) NO. 42 OF 2015

¶6

Manisha Heights Co-operative Housing Society …Plaintiff
Ltd.
Versus
M/s. Manisha Developers & Ors.…Defendants

¶7

Mr. P.M. Shah, a/w Mr. M.K. Tanna, for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Akshay Patil, a/w Mr. Suresh Sabrad i/b Mr. Sanjay Gawde, for
the Defendants No. 1 and 2.

¶8

Mr. R.Y. Sirsikar, for BMC i/b U.H. Deshpande & N.A. Shaikh, for
the Defendant No. 7.

¶9

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 20th August 2015

¶10

PC:-

¶11

1.This Motion can be disposed of by the following order made
by consent.

¶12

2.Learned Advocate for the Defendants No. 1 and 2 on
instructions from Defendant No. 2 who is personally present in
Court makes a statement in following terms :-

¶13

1 of 3

¶14

2-NMSL-153-15-SL-42-15.DOC

¶15

(a) That the 1st and 2nd Defendants will not put up any further or additional construction or make any alterations in the suit building except in the manner permissible under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963.

¶16

(b) That the building in question has received an Occupation Certificate up to the 18th floor except the 2nd floor. In respect of that floor and the 19th floor, applications for an Occupation Certificate are yet pending.

¶17

(c) That the 1st and 2nd Defendants will strictly abide by all relevant Municipal regulations and restrictions in relation to the user of 2nd floor premises.

¶18

(d) That the 1st and 2nd Defendants will complete and discharge all their obligations under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, by 31st March 2016.

¶19

(e) The 1st and 2nd Defendants will carry out internal renovations and modifications to the 2nd floor premises, but not structural changes, strictly in accordance with the terms of the Municipal permission dated 12th January 2015.

¶20

3. All these statement are noted and are accepted as undertakings to the Court.

¶21

2 of 3

¶22

2-NMSL-153-15-SL-42-15.DOC

¶23

4.As further protection to the Plaintiffs, in the event that the
Plaintiffs learn that any additional construction is being put up the
suit plot without their consent as required in law, the Plaintiffs will
be at liberty to apply for further reliefs in relation to any such
additional construction after four clear days’ notice to the
Advocates for the 1st and 2nd Defendants.

¶24

5. The Plaintiff is at liberty to take such proceedings as it may be advised in relation to the change of user of the 2nd floor premises. The 1st and 2nd Defendants will be at liberty to defend in such proceedings. All contentions in relation to this change of user are expressly kept open on both sides.

¶25

6. The Notice of Motion is disposed of in these terms.

¶26

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶27

3 of 3

Manisha Heights Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. M/S. Manisha Developers and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manisha Heights Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. M/S. Manisha Developers and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Geetesh Dhiranjlal Shah and Neena Geetesh Shah Vs Praful Dhirajlal Shah and 2 Ors(Caveators)

Sudipto Ghosal Vs Jaya Ghosal

Asian Paints Limited Vs Ganesa Enterprises Private Limited and Anr.

Phonographic Performance Ltd. Vs Ht Music and Enterainment Co.Ltd and Anr.

Sapat International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gs-We Contribute and Grow and Anr.

Sapat International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gs-We Contribute and Grow and Anr.