Single judge disposed of the second appeal alleging failure to grant interim relief. Bench directed the MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal to expedite the final hearing and disposal of the main appeal within six months, dismissing the interim stay application.
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.
Neeta Sawant 1/2 36-SA-87-2024.docx
20 February 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO. 87 OF 2024
W ITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1383 OF 2024
Pramila Sopan Parkhe
...Appellant
V/s.
M/s. Ayodhya Construction Co. & anr. ...Respondents
Mr. Arun Panicker, for the Appellant.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : 20 February 2024.
P.C. :
1)The challenge in this Appeal is to the Order dated 19 October
2023 passed by the MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal directing that the
application filed by the Appellant seeking interim relief would be taken up
at the time of final hearing of the Appeal. The Appellant is thus aggrieved
by non-grant of interim relief by the Appellate Tribunal in his pending
Appeal.
2) The controversy before the Appellate Tribunal is in extremely
narrow compass. The Appellant has already succeeded before the
Regulatory Authority who has passed the Order dated 11 February 2019
directing execution of the agreement for sale in respect of the Flat of the
Appellant. However, execution of the agreement is made conditional upon
Neeta Sawant 2/2 36-SA-87-2024.docx
20 February 2024
procurement of permission from the Collector. To the limited extent of
prescription of condition for procurement of Collector’s permission as a
pre-condition for execution of the Agreement for Sale, the Appellant has
filed the Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Mr. Panicker, the learned
counsel appearing for the Appellant, fairly submits that the Appellate
Tribunal has infact commenced with final hearing of the Appeal but the
hearing got derailed on account of certain queries by the Tribunal which
required production of certain additional documents. Considering the
nature of controversy involved in the present Appeal, in my view, instead
of examining the issue whether the Appellant is entitled to interim relief
during pendency of the Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, it would be
appropriate if the Appellate Tribunal is requested to take up the Appeal
for hearing expeditiously.
3) Mr. Panciker would assure this Court that earnest efforts
would be made by the Appellant for early disposal of the Appeal. In that
view of the matter, the Second Appeal is disposed of with a request to the
Appellate Tribunal to taken up the Appellant’s Appeal for final hearing
and to decide the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a
period of six months from today.
4). With disposal of the Appeal, Interim Application taken out
therein for stay does not survive. The same also stands disposed of.
Digitally signed by NEETA NEETA SHAILESH SHAILESH SAWANT SAWANT Date: 2024.02.23 18:44:14 +0530
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Appellate Tribunal is entitled to refuse interim relief during pendency of appeal in a matter involving execution of agreement for sale conditional on Collector's permission.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pramila Sopan Parkhe
M/s. Ayodhya Construction Co.
Sandeep V. Marne
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court