Case Note & Summary
The present Notice of Motion was filed in 2015 in Suit No. 693 of 2015 by the plaintiffs, Sudha Aziz Jhaveri and others, seeking an interim injunction restraining the defendants, Bharat Amarchand Doshi and others, from transferring, alienating, encumbering, or creating any third party rights in the suit property described in Exhibit A to the Plaint. The plaintiffs also sought appointment of the Court Receiver. The court heard arguments from Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate for the plaintiffs, Mr. Rohaan Cama for Defendant No.1, and Mr. Mustafa Kachwala for Defendant Nos.2 and 3. After considering the submissions, the court found that the plaintiffs had not made out a strong prima facie case for the grant of interim relief. The court observed that the mere pendency of the suit does not automatically entitle the plaintiffs to an injunction. The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the balance of convenience was in their favor or that they would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction was not granted. Consequently, the court dismissed the Notice of Motion, declining to grant the interim injunction or appoint the Court Receiver.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Prima Facie Case - Plaintiffs sought injunction to restrain defendants from dealing with suit property - Court held that plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case for grant of interim relief - Mere filing of suit does not entitle plaintiffs to injunction - Plaintiffs must demonstrate balance of convenience in their favor and irreparable loss (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to an interim injunction restraining the defendants from transferring, alienating, or encumbering the suit property pending disposal of the suit.
Final Decision
Notice of Motion dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Interim injunction
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- specific performance
- property dispute
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (06) 86
Notice of Motion No. 1576 of 2015 in Suit No. 693 of 2015
Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Vaibhav Bhure, Mr. Ashwin Shete, Mr. Abhay Dhadiwal, Ms. Isha Bafna, Ms. Mihir Kakade i/by Jayakar & Partners for Plaintiffs; Mr. Rohaan Cama a/w. Mr. Anish Karande and Ms. Bhakti Bhanushali i/by Sonal Doshi & Co. for Defendant No.1; Mr. Mustafa Kachwala a/w. Ms. Ketki Pansare i/by Kachwala Misar & Co. for Defendant Nos.2 & 3
Sudha Aziz Jhaveri and Ors.
Bharat Amarchand Doshi and Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit seeking interim injunction to restrain defendants from dealing with suit property.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiffs sought an order of injunction restraining Defendant nos. 1 and 5 from transferring, alienating, encumbering, or creating third party rights in the suit property, and appointment of Court Receiver.
Filing Reason
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants were attempting to transfer or encumber the suit property, causing apprehension of loss to plaintiffs.
Issues
Whether plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction?
Whether balance of convenience lies in favor of plaintiffs?
Whether plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss if injunction is not granted?
Submissions/Arguments
Plaintiffs argued that they have a strong case and that defendants are likely to alienate the property, causing irreparable harm.
Defendants contended that plaintiffs have no prima facie case and that no injunction should be granted.
Ratio Decidendi
A party seeking interim injunction must establish a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience in its favor, and irreparable loss. Mere pendency of suit does not entitle a party to injunction.
Judgment Excerpts
The present Notice of Motion is filed in 2015 for the following reliefs:- (a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an order of injunction restraining Defendant nos. 1 and 5...
Heard Mr. Kadam learned Senior Advocate for Plaintiffs; Mr. Cama, learned Advocate for Defendant No.1 and Mr. Kachwala, learned Advocate for Defendant Nos.2 and 3.
Procedural History
Notice of Motion filed in 2015 in Suit No. 693 of 2015. Heard on April 27, 2023, and judgment pronounced on June 5, 2023.
