Disposed

Dr. Ganesh Ramchandra Mane and Another v. M/S. Bhawani Constructin Company and Others

Bombay HC6 Jun 2024AO/412/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants, claiming under MoUs including a 2014 sale MoU and having paid substantial amounts, appealed against a City Civil Court order declining ad-interim restraint on transfer of suit premises. Respondents 3 and 4 agreed not to part with possession; the court directed no handover for 8 weeks and disposed of the appeal leaving merits to the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Respondent nos. 3 & 4 directed not to hand over possession of suit premises to respondent nos. 5 & 6 for 8 weeks; appeal and interim application disposed of.

Dr. Ganesh Ramchandra Mane and Another vs M/S. Bhawani… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

902 AO-412-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 412 OF 2024 WITH

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 9243 OF 2024

¶5

Dr. Ganesh Ramchandra Mane And Another Versus

¶6

...Appellants

¶7

M/s. Bhawani Construction Company And Others ...Respondents

¶8

¶9

Digitally signed by HUSENBASHA HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN RAHAMAN NADAF NADAF Date: 2024.12.19 10:43:54 +0530

¶10

Mr. Pradeep Thorat a/w Ms. Megha Shigavan i/b. Mr. Mohit Jadhav, for the Appellants.

¶11

Mr. Alok Mishra i/b. Mr. Virendra J. Tiwari, for Respondent Nos. 3 &4.

¶12

¶13

CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J. DATE : 18^th DECEMBER, 2024

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

Heard learned counsel for parties.

¶16

The appeal is filed challenging the Order dated 16.05.2024 passed by City Civil Court, Greater Bombay in Draft Motion in S.C. Suit (St.) No. 11209 of 2024. By the impugned order, ad-interim relief is declined.

¶17

Perusal of the impugned Order shows that the ad-interim relief was pressed for restraining Respondent Nos.1 to 4 from handing over possession of the suit premises to Respondent Nos.5 & 6.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that his claim is based on series of Memorandum of Understandings (MoUs) including last MoU dated 16.01.2014 which was for sale of suit

Page 1 of 3

Husen

902 AO-412-2024.doc

premises described as ‘nursing home premises’. He submits that the Appellants have paid Rs.92,50,000/- so far under the said transaction. Already, it is recorded in the earlier Order dated 16.12.2024 that the Appellants are ready to amend the plaint for seeking specific performance of the contract between the parties.

¶23

In such situation, it was pointed out that in breach of the Order dated 23.10.2018 passed by the Nation Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi, Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 have executed agreement for sale dated 03.11.2022 in favour of Respondent Nos. 5 & 6. He points out that Respondent Nos.3 & 4 were duly served when the said order dated 23.10.2018 granting injunction was passed.

¶24

Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 on instructions, submits that since the matter is at ad-interim stage and since Respondent No.3 & 4 have already filed reply and written statement to the motion and suit, after the impugned Order is passed, instead of entering into the dispute on merits in this Court at ad-interim stage, a statement can be made that Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 will not hand over the possession of the suit premises in favour of Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 for a limited period of 4 weeks.

¶25

It is informed to the Court that the next date in the Trial Court is 06.02.2025. Considering the said date and overall facts and circumstances in the matter and the stage at which parties stand in the suit (ad-interim), I find it appropriate to dispose of this matter, by passing following order.

Page 2 of 3

Husen

902 AO-412-2024.doc

(A) The Trial Court will decide the motion on its own merits, in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations in the impugned Order or the present Order. Rival contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶30

(B) Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 are directed not to part with the possession in favour of Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 for a period of 8 weeks from today. The Appellants are at liberty to seek further extension, if needed, from the Trial Court, on which the Trial Court is at liberty to pass appropriate orders.

¶31

(C) The Appellants have assured the Court that they will proceed with the motion on merits without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

¶32

(D) Needless to mention that if the amendment application for adding the prayer of specific performance is filed, the same shall also be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. Rival contentions of the parties in that regard, are also kept open.

¶33

Appeal from Order and pending interim application are disposed of in above terms.

¶34

All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed copy of this order.

¶35

(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)

¶36

Page 3 of 3

¶37

Husen

Dr. Ganesh Ramchandra Mane and Another v. M/S. Bhawani Constructin Company and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Ganesh Ramchandra Mane and Another v. M/S. Bhawani Constructin Company and Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashwin Gada vs M/S. Milan Associates and Others

M/S. World Renewal Spiritual Trust vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others

Smt. Sushama a Gupta and Anr. vs Minal Co-Operative Housing Society Limited

Dr. Ganesh Ramchandra Mane and Another vs M/S. Bhawani Constructin Company and Others

Shama Shashikant Palkar vs Sanjay Ratangiri Gosavi and Ors.

Shridhar Bhupal Shetti vs Paygonda Ganpati Shetti