Dismissed

Viraj Properties and Real Estate Private Limited. v. Matra Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Feb 2023IA/320/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court rejected an interim application by Vishal Parekar seeking to be impleaded as a defendant and to reject consent terms proposed by the plaintiff and other defendants. The court held the applicant has a separate cause of action against the plaintiff but no direct interest in the suit which challenges termination of a development agreement.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected; applicant may approach appropriate forum in a distinct proceeding.

Viraj Properties and Real Estate Private… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

37-ia-320-2023.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.320 OF 2023 IN

¶4

VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR

¶5

Digitally signed by VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Date: 2023.02.27 17:31:10 +0530

¶6

SUIT NO.794 OF 2013

¶7

Viraj Properties and Real Estate Private Limited ...Applicant In the matter of Matra Infra Project Private Limited ...Plaintiff

¶8

vs.

¶9

Oshiwara Mhada Gaondevi Complex Co.Op.Housing Association Ltd. and Others ...Defendants

¶10

Mr. Anushul Anjarlekar i/b. Raval Shah & Co., for the Applicant. Mr. Sahil Mahajan, for the Plaintiff.

¶11

Mr. Sandeep Bhagwat, for Defendant No.1.

¶12

Ms. Vaishali Sanghavi a/w. Mr. Mihir Aswani, Mr. Ameet Mehta i/b. Solicis Lex, for Defendant Nos. 2 to 4.

¶13

Ms. Anuprita Nalawade a/w. Mr. Harsh Mehta i/b. Malvi Ranchoddas & Co., for Defendant No. 5.

¶14

Ms. Shraddha Jadhav i/b. Mr. S.M. Suryawanshi, for Defdt. No. 6. Ms. Sayli Apte a/w. Ms. Shreya Shah i/b. Mr. P.G. Lad, for Defendant No. 7.

¶15

CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 22, 2023

¶16

P.C.:

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

The applicant has preferred this application to implead him as

¶19

a party defendant to the suit and to disregard/reject the consent terms proposed to be executed, purportedly without the consent of the majority of the individual members of the defendant Nos. 1 to 6.

¶20

Vishal Parekar, P.A.

¶21

...1

¶22

37-ia-320-2023.doc

¶23

The driving force behind this application is the proposed consent terms executed between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 6.

¶24

The applicant claims that the applicant had agreed to redevelop the suit project jointly with the plaintiff and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed between the plaintiff and the applicant on 11^th August, 2009. Subsequently, a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) was executed between the plaintiff and the applicant in January, 2010.

¶25

The applicant alleges breach of the MOU and JVA by the plaintiff. Hence, he was constrained to invoke arbitration against the plaintiff.

¶26

The second limb of the application is that the resolution passed by the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 societies are not with the consent of the majority of the individual members of the said societies.

¶27

Evidently, on both the counts the application does not deserve to be entertained. The applicant may have a cause of action against the plaintiff in respect of inter se transactions between the Vishal Parekar, P.A. ...2

¶28

...2

¶29

37-ia-320-2023.doc

¶30

applicant and the plaintiff. It would be, however, a distinct and separate course of action. The fact that there was an independent contract inter se the plaintiff and the applicant does not imply that the applicant has a direct interest in the subject matter of the instant suit, which is instituted by the plaintiff challenging the termination of the Development Agreement executed by the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 in favour of the plaintiff. The applicant can very well work out the remedies against the plaintiff in an appropriate proceeding before the appropriate forum.

¶31

So far as the contention that the resolutions are not passed with the consent of the majority of the members of defendant Nos. 1 to 6 societies, the said challenge can be raised, if so advised, by the concerned members of the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 societies before an appropriate forum. By no stretch of imagination such contention furnishes a justifiable cause for the applicant to seek impleadment in the instant suit.

¶32

Hence, the application stands rejected.

¶33

Vishal Parekar, P.A.

¶34

...3

Viraj Properties and Real Estate Private Limited. v. Matra Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viraj Properties and Real Estate Private Limited. v. Matra Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. 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

Jayshree Builders Vs Bandra Rang Mahal Co-Op. Hsg. Society Ltd. and Ors.

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai Vs the Sale Proceeds of the Vessel Mv TAG-22

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai Vs the Sale Proceeds of the Vessel M.V TAG-7, (Imo No. 9379002)

Amit Kashinath Patil Vs the Official Liquidator of Kaizen Wheels Pvt.Ltd.

The Official Liquidator of Etisalat Db Telecom Pvt. Ltd. (in Liquidation) Vs Etisalat Mauritius Limited (Petitioner)

Matra Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. Vs Oshiwara Mhada Gaondevi Complex and 5 Ors.