Case Note & Summary
The judgment under consideration pertains to interim applications and notices of motion in a suit before the Bombay High Court. The plaintiff, a co-operative housing society, sought confirmation of ad-interim orders passed in its favor, while the defendant no. 8 sought vacation of those orders. The dispute revolved around construction of Building No. 4, use of Transferable Development Rights (TDR), and access to certain recreational ground areas. The larger property comprised CTS Nos. 104A to 104J admeasuring 68,373.20 sq.meters, and the suit land was CTS No. 104A admeasuring 14,383.40 sq.meters in Village Dindoshi, Taluka Borivali. The owners (defendant nos. 2 to 6) had entered into Articles of Agreement with defendant no. 1 as managers on 14 April 1993, which envisaged FSI capable of generating about 6 lacs sq.ft built-up area in four buildings on Plot A and three buildings on Plot B. A layout plan was sanctioned on 14 January 1994, and a Commencement Certificate for Building No. 2 (Vasant Valley Aster) was issued on 6 July 1994. Plans submitted on 10 July 1997 were approved on 20 November 1997, during which period Appendix VII B was introduced in DCR 1991, enabling TDR loading subject to maximum 2 FSI. Defendant no. 1 entered into Agreements for Sale with prospective buyers (members of plaintiff and defendant no. 7 societies) on 30 November 2001. The agreement included clauses allowing developers to make additions and restricting purchasers from raising disputes under Section 7 of Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act. Defendant no. 1 allotted parking spaces in RG3 and RG4 areas. Occupation Certificate for defendant no. 7 building was issued on 7 May 2003, and plaintiff society was registered on 23 October 2003 with 32 members. Further layout plans were sanctioned in 2004 and 2007, with Building No. 4 shown as stilt plus 14 floors in 2007. On 23 November 2007, the Government of Maharashtra issued an order under Section 154 restricting TDR use to proportionate vacant land area. Defendant no. 8 addressed a letter on 7 September 2008 seeking no objection for construction of Building No. 4 (proposed 34 storeys), and plaintiff sought details on 11 September 2008. A writ petition filed by a member of defendant no. 7 challenging amended layout plans was disposed of on 9 August 2010. A layout plan sanctioned on 25 September 2009 showed Building No. 4 as stilt plus 21 floors. Articles of Agreement between owners and defendant no. 8 for development of Building Nos. 1 and 4 were entered on 6 January 2010, involving procurement of TDR FSI admeasuring 8240 sq.mtrs. Occupation Certificate for Building No. 1 (Sheth House) was issued on 24 August 2010. IOD for Building No. 4 was issued on 6 December 2010, and first Commencement Certificate on 25 February 2011. Defendant no. 1 attempted construction in February 2011, leading to complaints by plaintiff, and MCGM issued stop work notice under Section 354A of MMC Act on 29 December 2011. The court had passed three ad-interim orders: on 6 February 2018, status quo; on 23 February 2018, restraint on sale and TDR loading; and on 11 July 2018, injunction against obstruction of entry to RG areas. The interim application sought vacation of these orders, while the notices of motion sought confirmation. The provided text ends with the stop work notice, and the court's analysis and final decision are not included in the available excerpt.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the ad-interim orders dated 6 February 2018, 23 February 2018, and 11 July 2018 should be confirmed or vacated.
