Appeal against ad-interim order restraining the appellant from dealing with suit properties. Court declined to interfere with the discretionary interlocutory order, dismissed the appeal, and requested expeditious disposal of the pending Interim Application within three months of 18 June 2024.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Digitally signed LAXMIKANT by LAXMIKANT GOPAL GOPAL CHANDAN CHANDAN Date: 2024.05.08 16:53:42 +0530
1 (4) APP-64.24-aw-IA-970.24.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO.64 OF 2024 IN INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.27645 OF 2023 IN SUIT (L) NO.16029 OF 2023
Khush Housing Finance Private Limited : Appellant/ Through its authorized representative Orig.Defendant No.5 Vs. Vikas Vishnu Gupta and ors. : Respondents (Orgi. Defendant Nos.6 to 19)
ALONG WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.970 OF 2024 IN APPEAL NO.64 OF 2024 IN
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.27645 OF 2023 IN
SUIT (L) NO.16029 OF 2023
Khush Housing Finance Private Limited : Applicant/Appellant/ Through its authorized representative Orig.Defendant No.5 Vs.
Vikas Vishnu Gupta and ors. : Respondents (Orgi. Defendant Nos.6 to 19)
Mr. Cherag Balsara a/w Mr. Sandeep Barve, Mr. Santosh Wagh, Ms. Sonali Patil and Ms. Archana Lad i/by B. K. Barve & Co. for the Appellant/Applicant.
Mr. Aadil Parsurampuria a/w Mr. Tejas Agarwal, Mr. Ashutosh Agarwal and Advocate H Shah i/by IC Legal for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
1 of 4
LGC
2 (4) APP-64.24-aw-IA-970.24.doc
Mr. Saurish Shetye i/by Yogesh Devnani, Mr. Rishikesh Mishra and Mr. Chirag Hathiramani for Respondent Nos. 4 to 7.
CORAM : DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. & ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. DATE : 07th MAY, 2024
P.C. :
the Appellant submits that the said ad-interim order came to be passed only because the Appellant had refused to continue to the statement made by them as recorded in the previous orders. He invites our attention to the statement made and points out that the Appellant had by the said statement undertaken not to create third party rights in respect of the properties more particularly described in Exhibits A and C to the plaint. He submits that since the Appellant had chosen not to continue to the statement, the Learned Judge, by way of the Impugned
2 of 4
LGC
3 (4) APP-64.24-aw-IA-970.24.doc
Order, had restrained the Appellant inter-alia from dealing with and/or parting with the possession of the Suit properties more particularly described in Exhibits A, B and C to the plaint. Mr. Balsara submits that these properties exceed the statement of the Respondents. He submits that thus the Appellant cannot be faced with an order of injunction which is wider in terms than the statement made by the Appellant and put restraint on the Appellant from dealing with all the Suit properties.
3 of 4
LGC
4 (4) APP-64.24-aw-IA-970.24.doc
hearing on the Interim Application on 18th June 2024.
(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)
(CHIEF JUSTICE)
4 of 4
LGC
1 issue framed by the court
Should the Division Court interfere with an ad-interim injunction restraining the appellant from dealing with suit properties pending hearing of the Interim Application?
Khush Housing Finance Private Limited
Vikas Vishnu Gupta
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Arif S. Doctor
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
