Case Note & Summary
This matter arises from an interim application filed by the plaintiff, Ambit Life Style Homes LLP, in a suit for enforcement of a registered development agreement dated 11 November 2022, executed by Defendant No.1, Parekh Market Premises Co-operative Ltd., a cooperative society. The development agreement pertains to the redevelopment of a property known as ‘Parekh Market’ situated at M.G. Road, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai. The property involved multiple wings and a trust building built by Padmanabh Builders, who had earlier constructed three wings and later assigned development rights to Defendant No.2, Kanaiyalal Madhavji Thakkar, for additional construction. Over the years, disputes arose between Padmanabh and Defendant No.2 regarding exploitation of FSI, leading to litigation. Padmanabh filed Suit No. 1330 of 2000, and Defendant No.2’s counterclaim for specific performance of various agreements was dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, with the rejection upheld by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court. In 2014, the society obtained a deemed conveyance of the entire land, which was challenged by both Padmanabh and Defendant No.2 through pending writ petitions. In this backdrop, the society entered into the development agreement with the plaintiff in 2022. The plaintiff obtained necessary permissions from the Slum Redevelopment Authority, and a majority of the 88 occupants vacated their premises. However, Defendants 2 to 16, a minority of occupiers, refused to vacate, stalling redevelopment. The plaintiff filed the present suit and sought interim relief in the form of a temporary injunction directing the said defendants to vacate, appointing a court receiver, and compelling execution of permanent alternate accommodation agreements. The plaintiff alleged that it had incurred substantial expenditure, paid monthly hardship compensation, and that all approvals were in place. The plaintiff’s counsel argued that the obstructionist defendants formed a minuscule minority, were entitled to the same benefits under the development agreement, and that their non-cooperation was causing financial strain and delay. The court heard the matter on 16 October 2025 and delivered an oral judgment. However, the provided transcript of the judgment is incomplete and does not include the court’s analysis, reasoning, or final decision. Consequently, the outcome of the interim application and any legal findings remain unknown from the available text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to temporary injunction directing defendants to vacate and appointing court receiver pending suit for enforcement of development agreement, given that majority of occupants have vacated and redevelopment is stalled due to minority holdouts.
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (10) 55
Interim Application (Lodg.) No. 30513 of 2025 in Suit (Lodg.) No. 30486 of 2025
Ravi Kadam (Plaintiff), Ashish Kamat (Defendant No.1), Manoj Shirsat (Defendant Nos.2-3), Mayur Khandeparkar (Defendant Nos.6,13), Vikramjit Singh Garewal (Defendant Nos.4,5,7-12,14-16)
Ambit Life Style Homes LLP
Parekh Market Premises Co-operative Ltd. (Defendant No.1) along with Defendant Nos. 2 to 16
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Interim application seeking temporary injunction in a suit for enforcement of development agreement for redevelopment of property.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiff seeking direction against Defendant Nos.2 to 16 to vacate premises, appointment of Court Receiver, and execution of agreements for permanent alternate accommodation.
Filing Reason
70 out of 88 occupants vacated, but Defendants 2 to 16 refused to vacate, stalling redevelopment despite approvals and plaintiff incurring costs.
Previous Decisions
Earlier litigation: Padmanabh filed Suit No. 1330/2000 against Defendant No.2; Counterclaim by Defendant No.2 rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, upheld up to Supreme Court; Society got deemed conveyance order on 27.05.2014; writ petitions challenging deemed conveyance pending.
Issues
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to temporary injunction directing Defendants 2-16 to vacate and handover possession of their respective premises before trial of the suit.
Whether court receiver should be appointed for the premises occupied by the obstructionist defendants.
Whether the minority of occupants refusing to vacate can be compelled to vacate when majority have already vacated and all permissions are in place.
Whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury for grant of mandatory injunction at interim stage.
Submissions/Arguments
Plaintiff's counsel submitted that Defendants 2-16 are obstructionists who would receive same benefits under Development Agreement including 22% additional carpet area, monthly displacement compensation, etc.; despite securing development permission, plaintiff unable to commence construction due to refusal to vacate; plaintiff complied with all statutory obligations; defendants form a minuscule minority; plaintiff paid monthly hardship compensation of Rs. 1.40 crores to 70 occupants and has liability of Rs. 27 lakhs per month; total expenditure on project till date Rs. 10.04 crores; all necessary permissions for construction are in place; petition filed by Defendant No.2 challenging LOI/IOA has been withdrawn; redevelopment work held up due to non-cooperation by few occupants.
Judgment Excerpts
Plaintiff has encountered a situation where, though 70 out of 88 occupants have already vacated and surrendered possession of their respective premises and 3 out of 5 building are already pulled down, Defendant Nos. 2 to 16 have refused to vacate and handover possession of their respective premises.
Defendant No.1-Society executed Development Agreement dated 11 November 2022 in favour of the Plaintiff for carrying out redevelopment of its buildings.
Plaintiff accordingly called upon the occupants to vacate the premises in their occupation after issuance of the Letter of Intent dated 22 October 2024 (LoI) by the Slum Redevelopment Authority (SRA).
Procedural History
Plaintiff filed Suit (Lodg.) No. 30486 of 2025 against defendants for enforcement of development agreement. Along with the suit, plaintiff filed Interim Application (Lodg.) No. 30513 of 2025 seeking temporary injunction. The matter was heard by Bombay High Court on 16 October 2025. Earlier background: Defendant No.1 society obtained deemed conveyance in 2014-2015; previous litigation between Padmanabh and Defendant No.2 regarding development rights culminating in rejection of Defendant No.2's counterclaim up to Supreme Court; Plaintiff entered into Development Agreement with society in November 2022; SRA approvals obtained; majority occupants vacated; plaintiff incurred expenditure and paying compensation.
Acts & Sections
- Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Order 7 Rule 11, Order 40 Rule 1
