Disposed

Mrs Moushami Amit Bajaj and Others v. M/S Kamalashri Builders and Others

Bombay HC16 Aug 2024CRR/96/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court Receiver sought discharge from overseeing a redevelopment project, alternatively directions for completing construction as flat purchasers had not deposited balance consideration. Plaintiffs and defendants agreed not to press discharge; parties permitted to submit redevelopment proposals; Receiver to report. Developers' notice returnable extended.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mrs Moushami Amit Bajaj and Others vs M/S Kamalashri… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1-CRR-96-2024 IN S-933-2016.DOC

¶2

Digitally signed by MULEY MULEYSHUBHAMPRAVINRAO SHUBHAMPRAVINRAODate:2024.12.20 17:12:30 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT NO. 96 OF 2024

¶6

¶7

SUIT NO. 933 OF 2016

¶8

Moushami Amit Bajaj & Ors Versus

¶9

…Plaintiffs

¶10

Kamalashri Builders & Ors …Defendants

¶11

Mr. Naushad Engineer, Senior Counsel a/w Malcolm Signporia and Mt. P. A. Jani i/by Vigil Juris Advocates and Solicitors for the Plaintiffs. Mr. Mayuresh J. for Defendant Nos.7 to 13.

¶12

Mr. Aadil Parsurampuria a/w Darshana Vora i/by M/s. Legal Vision for Defendant Nos.14, 16 & 17.

¶13

Mr. Bharat R. Zaveri for Defendant No.15.

¶14

Mr. Nitin Pawar, OSD, Court Receiver is present.

¶15

CORAM: ARIF S. DOCTOR, J DATED: 20th December 2024

¶16

PC:-

¶17

This captioned Court Receiver Report has been filed

¶18

seeking various prayers, primarily the Court Receiver has sought a discharge stating that since redevelopment of the building in question

¶19

Shubham

¶20

Page 1 of 4

¶21

1-CRR-96-2024 IN S-933-2016.DOC

¶22

was to be completed under the agents of the Court Receiver and no steps have been taken by the parties, thus discharge was sought. The Court Receiver has also in the alternative sought prayer clause (e) which reads thus:-

¶23

“(e) If the prayer (a) is negative then, what steps Court Receiver should take to complete suit project as the flat purchasers have not deposited the balance consideration in the office of the Court Receiver as per Order dated 25th November, 2016;”

¶24

Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. Mr. Engineer, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs at the outset clarified that the Plaintiffs were not pressing for discharge of the Court Receiver. This was equally accord by Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Defendant Nos.14, 16 and 17 and Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Defendant No.15. It is common that all the parties represented before the Court today are all flat purchasers in respect of the said building and all of whom would want the building to be completed.

¶25

In this regard it was pointed out that this Court had on a previous occasion appointed Mr. Shetgiri as Architect to assess the said construction that already stands on the building. Mr. Shetgiri has submitted his report. Since today the proposal made by Learned Senior

¶26

Shubham

¶27

Page 2 of 4

¶28

1-CRR-96-2024 IN S-933-2016.DOC

¶29

Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff was that the Plaintiff would complete the construction at his own costs which was opposed by the other Defendants, however, all of them sough the liberty for placing their respective proposals for redevelopment so as to ensure (i) that the developer be made to contribute to the redevelopment and (ii) the best possible exploitation of the FSI in question as per the prevailing laws.

¶30

In this regard, I pass the following order:-

¶31

i. Let the meeting be held in the office of the Court Receiver where Mr. Shetgiri is present.

¶32

ii. The Plaintiffs and Defendants, who are present today shall also be permitted to submit their individual plans/proposals along with their respective Architects for the said redevelopment.

¶33

iii. Let this be considered by the Court Receiver, who shall then prepare a report on this basis and submit the same to this Court.

¶34

At this stage, Mr. Parsurampuria, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Defendant Nos.14, 16 and 17 has invited my attention to the order dated 8th October, 2024 and pointed out that by

¶35

Shubham

¶36

Page 3 of 4

¶37

1-CRR-96-2024 IN S-933-2016.DOC

¶38

my previous order, notice had been issued to Defendant Nos.1 to 6 (developers). However, since the notice is unserved, returnable date of notice is extended upto and including 24th January, 2025 to ensure the presence of the developers. A copy of this order shall also be served upon the developers by Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs as also for the Defendants.

¶39

It is made clear that if on the next date the developers are

¶40

not present, the Court shall be constrained to issue a non-bailable warrant to ensure their presence.

¶41

The Court Receiver Report is disposed of in the aforesaid

¶42

terms.

¶43

The Plaintiffs to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the Court Receiver in terms of prayer clause (d).

¶44

List the Suit on 24th January, 2025 along with Interim Application (L) No.35156 of 2024.

¶45

(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J)

¶46

Shubham

¶47

Page 4 of 4

Mrs Moushami Amit Bajaj and Others v. M/S Kamalashri Builders and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mrs Moushami Amit Bajaj and Others v. M/S Kamalashri Builders and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lyka Exports Limited vs Neeraj Agarwal Proprietor of Cadiz Lifesciences

Idbi Trusteeship Services Limited vs Shashwati Realty Private Limited

M/S Jokhu Marine Works Prop Concern Ramashre Mishra Sole Prop Throgh Its Ca Anand Ramashre Mishra vs M/S Galleon Shipping Ltd.

Darius Burjor Shroff vs Jaideep Singh Grewal

Richad Mamod Riajhouseen Tahora vs Jitendra S Brahmbhatt

Kr Construction vs State of Maharashtra