Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from an ad-interim order passed by the Bombay City Civil Court at Dindoshi, Mumbai, which restrained the appellant, Goregaon Pearl CHSL (a cooperative housing society), from alienating or creating any third party interest in the suit flat. The respondents, Dr. Seema Mahadev Paryekar and others, are members of the society who had handed over possession of their flats for redevelopment. The society had entered into a development agreement with respondent No.2 developer, who was obligated to complete the project within twenty-two months from the date of receipt of the commencement certificate, with a three-month grace period. The project involved construction of two wings, A and B, to accommodate the members. The respondents sought an injunction to prevent the society from dealing with the suit flat, claiming that the society was attempting to alienate the property in violation of their rights. The trial court granted the ad-interim injunction, which was perpetuated. On appeal, the High Court noted that the controversy had a long history, including proceedings before the Supreme Court. The court observed that the project was near completion, with the developer having constructed the building and being ready to hand over possession to the members. The court held that the balance of convenience was in favour of the society and the developer, as the respondents had not demonstrated any irreparable injury that could not be compensated by damages. The court set aside the ad-interim injunction and directed the trial court to expedite the hearing of the notice of motion. The appeal was allowed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Ad-Interim Injunction - Balance of Convenience - In a dispute over redevelopment of a housing society, the court held that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the society and the developer, as the project is near completion and the respondent members have not demonstrated any irreparable injury that cannot be compensated by damages. The ad-interim injunction was set aside. (Paras 2-4) B) Property Law - Development Agreement - Rights of Members - Members who have handed over possession for redevelopment cannot unilaterally obstruct the project by seeking injunction against the society, especially when the developer has already constructed the building and is ready to hand over possession. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the ad-interim injunction restraining the appellant society from alienating or creating third party interest in the suit flat should be sustained pending hearing of the notice of motion.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The ad-interim injunction order passed by the Bombay City Civil Court at Dindoshi is set aside. The trial court is directed to expedite the hearing of the notice of motion.
Law Points
- Ad-interim injunction
- balance of convenience
- irreparable injury
- prima facie case
- development agreement
- specific performance
- interim relief
- civil procedure
