Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, a developer, filed suit for specific performance of a redevelopment contract against a cooperative housing society and some of its non-cooperating members. The dispute arose after the society, through a tender process, appointed the plaintiff to redevelop its property comprising land and buildings with 120 flats. The development agreement provided terms including area adjustments, compensation, and execution of tripartite agreements. Differences emerged when a reduction of 80 square feet from the agreed permanent alternate accommodation was proposed, leading to non-cooperation by certain members who did not execute tripartite agreements or vacate their premises. The plaintiff sought interim reliefs in the nature of mandatory injunction to execute tripartite agreements, injunction against alienation or encumbrance of the property, and appointment of a receiver under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court heard the matter and reserved judgment on 27 June 2013. The provided text narrates the factual background up to paragraph 16, without recording the arguments or the court's final order.
Issue of Consideration
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 859 OF 2013
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (09) 126
Notice of Motion No. 859 of 2013 in Suit No. 397 of 2013
Aspi Chinoy, Sanjay Jain, Nissan Sasidharan, Kalpesh Mehta, Vashim Shaikh for Plaintiff; Virag Tulzapurkar for Defendant Nos. 1 to 11(a), 11(b) and 23; A.G. Damle for Defendant Nos. 13 to 22, 24(a), 25(a) to 27; Tushar Goradia for Defendant No. 28
Jaysen S. Mastakar and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Suit for specific performance of redevelopment contract and injunctions against non-cooperating members of a cooperative housing society.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiff seeks declaration that the suit contract is valid, mandatory injunction to execute tripartite agreements, handover possession, perpetual injunction against alienation, and damages.
Filing Reason
Dispute over reduction of area in permanent alternate accommodation and non-cooperation of society members in executing tripartite agreements and handing over possession.
Judgment Excerpts
The above Suit is filed by the Plaintiff for (i) a declaration that the Suit Contract (Exhibits O, U and II to the Plaint) is valid, subsisting and binding upon the Defendants; (ii) a mandatory order and injunction directing Defendant Nos. 1 to 28 to comply with the Suit Contract (Exhibits O, U and II to the Plaint); (iii) an order directing Defendant Nos. 1 to 27 to sign and execute the Tripartite Agreements in terms of Clause 4 of the Second Supplemental Agreement (ExhibitII to the Plaint); (iv) a mandatory order and injunction directing Defendant Nos. 1 to 28 to forthwith hand over quiet, vacant and peaceful possession of the property more particularly described in ExhibitA to the Plaint...
The Plaintiff is a Developer and carries on the business of developing properties. Defendant No. 28 is a Cooperative Housing Society. Defendant No. 28 is the owner of land bearing CTS No. 717, 717/1 to 51 of Vile Parle Division... Defendant No. 28 has appointed the Plaintiff to redevelop the Suit Property. Defendant Nos. 1 to 11 (b), 13 to 24 (a) and 25(a) to 27 (noncooperating Members) having in all 27 flats have certain differences with the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 28 as regards reduction of 80 square feet of area agreed to be given to the Members...
Procedural History
Plaintiff filed Suit No. 397 of 2013 along with Notice of Motion No. 859 of 2013 seeking interim reliefs. The Court heard the motion and reserved judgment on 27 June 2013. Judgment pronounced on 16 September 2013.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XL, Rule 1
- Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991:
