Dismissed

Shivkripa Builders and Developers v. the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 8 Ors. and Chandrakant Narayan Belose and 13 Ors.

Bombay HC26 Oct 2018CHSW/322/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Committee dismissed a chamber summons seeking impleadment of applicants as respondents. The court held that members of a respondent cooperative society lack an independent right to intervene when the society espouses their cause, requiring them to speak through the society.

What did the court decide?

The chamber summons for impleadment of Applicants as Respondents Nos. 10 and 11 was dismissed.

Shivkripa Builders and Developers Vs the Slum… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

chs-322-17(3).doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.322 OF 2017 IN

¶3

WRIT PETITION St. NO.672 OF 2015

¶4

Shivkripa Builders & Developers ..Petitioner Vs. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors ..Respondents And Chandrakant Narayan Belose & Ors ..Applicants

¶5

Mr. Uday Bobade a/w Mr. Amit Potnis, a/w Mr. Sandeep Suryavanshi a/w Ms Priyanka Rane I/b Tamhane & Co. for the Applicants in CHS Nos.324/17, 322/17, 323/17, 318/17 & 320/17

¶6

Mr. A. S. Jaiswal for the Applicant in CHS No.189 of 2018

¶7

Mr. Prakash Mahadik for the Petitioner in WP(L) No.505/15, 1205/15 and for the Petitioner in WP NO/2421/16 and Contempt Petition No.63/17

¶8

Mr. Chirag Mody a/w Mr. Rishikesh Soni, Mr.Ashok Purohit a/w Ms Dharti Pandya I/b Ashok Purohit & Co. for the Respondent SRA

¶9

Mr. Himanshu Takke AGP for the Respondent No.2 in WP No.2421/16, 505/15, 1205/15 and for the Respondent No.9 in WP (L) No.672/15

¶10

Mr. Amit Shastri AGP for the Respondent No.2 in WP No.2424/15

¶11

Mr. S. B. Gore AGP for the Respondent State in WP No.2595/15

¶12

Mr. Samir Vaidya for Respondent Nos.7 and 10 in WP 505/15, 1205/15 and for Petitioner in WP 2421/16 and Contempt Petition No.63/17

¶13

Mr. S. S. Kurade I/b Mr. V. D. Patil for the Respondent High Power Committee in all matters

¶14

Mr. Karl Tamboly a/w Ms Aishwarya Singh I/b Bharucha & Partners for Petitioners in WP Nos.1205/15, 2595/15, and for Applicant in Notice of Motion No.423 of 2015

¶15

Ms Naira Jejeebhoy a/w Mr. Arun Panickar a/w Mr. Mangesh Sawant for

¶16

1 of 3

¶17

mmj

¶18

chs-322-17(3).doc

¶19

the Petitioner in WP No.505/15 and 2424/15 and for the Respondent No.9 in WP 1205/15, 2421/16, WP(L) 976/15 and for the Respondent No.8 in WP(L) 672/15

¶20

CORAM :R. M. SAVANT, &

¶21

NITIN W. SAMBRE, JJ DATE : 26^th OCTOBER, 2018

¶22

P.C.

¶23

1 The above Chamber Summons has been filed seeking the relief of impleadment in the above Writ Petition No.672 of 2015. The said relief is founded on the fact that the Applicants are the members of the Respondent No.4 i.e. one Indira SRA Co-op Hsg Sty Ltd., and to protect their interest, they are seeking their impleadment as the Respondent Nos.10 and 11. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants Mr. Bobade would submit that inspite of the Respondent No.4 society being a party to the above Petition and espousing the cause of the slum dwellers who are its members, no progress has been made in the implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on the plot of land in question. It was therefore the submission of the Learned Counsel that the presence of the Applicants in the above Petition is necessary as orders passed in the above Petition or in the other Petitions is likely to affect the Applicants.

¶24

2 The above Chamber Summons is opposed to on behalf of the original Petitioner as well as the Respondent No.4 and the opposition is on the ground that the Applicants who claim to be the members of the Respondent

¶25

mmj

¶26

2 of 3

¶27

chs-322-17(3).doc

¶28

No.4 society have to speak through the society and cannot have an independent stand in the matters which are of common interest to the members. The said position is well settled in law.

¶29

3 We are also informed that the Applicants herein have moved an application in the year 2017 for deregistration of the Respondent No.4. This fact in a way exemplifies the relationship between the Applicants and the Respondent No.4 society.

¶30

4 Be that as it may, having regard to the legal position which flows out of the judgments of this court, the Applicants who are the members of the Respondent No.4 do not have an independent right dehors the Respondent No.4 society. In view thereof it is not possible to accede to the request of the Applicants for they being impleaded in the above Writ Petition as the Respondents. The above Chamber Summons is accordingly dismissed.

¶31

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J] [R.M.SAVANT, J]

¶32

3 of 3

¶33

mmj

Shivkripa Builders and Developers v. the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 8 Ors. and Chandrakant Narayan Belose and 13 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivkripa Builders and Developers v. the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 8 Ors. and Chandrakant Narayan Belose and 13 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

Airports Authority of India through Deputy Gen. Manager Vs Bhupendra Jagannath Patil

Nitin Ramkrishna Makude Vs Union of India through the Secretary and Ors.

Manoj Shankarlal Lohiya and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Indira Sra Co-Operative Housing Society Vs the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 8 Ors. and Maganlal Kesarlal Jaiswal and 4 Ors. (Applicants)

Indira Sra Co-Operative Housing Society Vs the High Power Committee-Ii 9 Others and Chandrakant Narayan Belose and 13 Others (Applicants)

Indira Sra Co-Operative Housing Society Vs the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 8 Ors. and Chandrakant Narayan Belose and 13 Ors. (Applicant)