Disposed

Soni Tower Co. Operative Housing Society Limited v. M/S. Sono and Associates and Another

Bombay HC16 Dec 2024IA/1905/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenging the rejection of a motion seeking injunctions and disclosures regarding construction on deemed conveyed property was disposed of on the developer's undertaking to halt future sales and disclose suit pendency. The High Court also expedited the pending suit.

What did the court decide?

Undertaking recorded from Respondent-1 to restrict sales of balance flats pending suit; future purchasers to be notified of suit pendency; suit heard within one year.

Soni Tower Co. Operative Housing Society Limited vs M/S… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 15-AO-176-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 176 OF 2024 WITH

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1905 OF 2024

¶5

SNEHA NITIN

¶6

CHAVAN

¶7

Digitally signed by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2024.12.16 19:29:40 +0530

¶8

...Appellant

¶9

Soni Tower Co. Operative Housing Society Limited

¶10

Versus

¶11

M/s. Soni And Associates And Another ...Respondents

¶12

¶13

Mr. Nishant Sashidharan with Karan Jakhar i/b LJ Law for the Appellant.

¶14

Mr. Rajesh Kachare for Respondent No.1.

¶15

Ms. Seena Rawade for Respondent No.2/BMC.

¶16

Mr. Babu Mohammad Badgujar, proprietor of Respondent No.1 present

¶17

¶18

CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J. DATE : 16^th DECEMBER 2024

¶19

P.C. :

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

The appeal is filed challenging the impugned order dated 01.12.2023 passed in Notice of Motion No. 3536 of 2023 and Notice of Motion No. 3098 of 2023 in L.C. Suit No. 1660 of 2016 by Bombay City Civil Court at Dindoshi, Borivali Division, Goregaon, Mumbai.

¶22

By the said impugned order, the motion taken out by the Appellant/Plaintiff society seeking certain disclosures about sanction permission and further injunction not to create 3^rd party interest or part with possession and not to carryout further construction, was rejected.

Sneha Chavan

1/3

2 15-AO-176-2024.doc

Apparently, dispute revolves around the present construction which is undertaken by the Respondent/Developer, which according to the Developer is on CTS No. 662. This position is however disputed by learned counsel for the Appellant/Society by contending that during pendency of the suit, the Society has received deemed conveyance of 3300 sq. mtrs. portion from CTS Nos. 661, 663 and 667. It is submitted that since the Respondent/Developer is proceeding with construction after amalgamation of these plots, according to the Society, the Respondent/Developer is using the TDR/FSI benefits from property of the society under the deemed conveyance.

¶27

Perusal of the impugned order shows that it was prima facie found that the present construction is on the parking allotted to the members of the Plaintiff/Society.

¶28

After the matter was considered for some time, learned counsel for the Respondent/Developer on instructions from proprietor of Respondent No.1/Developer, who is present in the Court, submits that as on today, 51 flats are already sold and 3^rd party interests are already created. He however states on instructions that sale of balance flats can be made subject to final outcome of the suit and in that situation, and Respondent No.1/Developer will not claim equity in respect of such sale of balance flats and the prospective purchasers in respect of balance flats will be put to notice about the pendency of the suit as well as present order.

¶29

Learned counsel for the Appellant/Society on instructions submits that if such statement is recorded, it can be accepted without prejudice and the Appeal can be disposed of.

Sneha Chavan

2/3

15-AO-176-2024.doc

In that view of the matter, the Appeal from Order and the pending application are disposed of with the above statement of Respondent No.1 recorded as undertaking to this Court.

¶34

Considering that the suit is of the year 2016 and is already pending for last 8 years, the hearing of the suit is expedited, preferably within a period of one year from today.

¶35

Needless to mention that the suit will be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned order or in this Order.

¶36

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

¶37

(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)

¶38

Sneha Chavan

¶39

3/3

Soni Tower Co. Operative Housing Society Limited v. M/S. Sono and Associates and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soni Tower Co. Operative Housing Society Limited v. M/S. Sono and Associates and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhijit Vishwas Phanse vs Vijay Bajirao Phanse and Others

Karan @ Vishnu Rajaram Nishad vs the State of Maharashtra

Abhijit Vishwas Phanse vs Vijay Bajirao Phanse and Others

Najir Iman Siraj Deceassed and Ors. vs Vishnu Aba Vanjare and Ors.

Ashadevi Ramchandra Mishra vs Kazi Realtors Pvt. Ltd.

Pushpita Veenesh Sinha vs Veenesh Chandrabhushan Sharan Priyadarshi (Sinha)