Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Shree Vardhaman Sthanakvasi Jain Shravak Sangh – Dadar, a trust, filed a suit against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, its Assistant Municipal Commissioner, a cooperative housing society, and a developer. The trust's structure had been demolished by the corporation. The trust sought a declaration and injunction to prevent the developer from constructing on the land. The trial court initially granted an ex-parte status quo order on 16 June 2010, which was later confirmed on 19 October 2010. Subsequently, the developer filed a notice of motion to vacate the status quo order. The trial court, by order dated 30 November 2013, rejected the trust's notice of motion for status quo and allowed the developer's motion to vacate the earlier order. The trust appealed. The High Court heard the matter finally at the admission stage. The court noted that the trust's structure had been demolished and that the developer had obtained necessary permissions. The court held that the trust failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction, as the balance of convenience was in favor of the developer and no irreparable loss would be caused to the trust. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Prima Facie Case - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - The court must assess whether the plaintiff has a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss before granting interim injunction. The trial court's rejection of status quo was upheld as the plaintiff failed to establish these elements. (Paras 6-10)
B) Property Law - Trust Property - Demolition by Corporation - The plaintiff trust's structure was demolished by the Municipal Corporation, and the developer sought to develop the land. The court held that the plaintiff did not demonstrate any right to prevent the developer from proceeding with construction. (Paras 5-7)
C) Interim Orders - Vacation of Status Quo - The trial court allowed the developer's motion to vacate the earlier status quo order, finding that the plaintiff had not made out a case for continuation. The High Court affirmed, noting that the plaintiff's suit was for declaration and injunction, but no irreparable loss was shown. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the plaintiff's notice of motion for status quo and allowing the developer's motion to vacate the earlier status quo order.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's order dated 30 November 2013 which rejected the appellants' notice of motion and allowed the developer's motion to vacate the status quo.
Law Points
- Interim injunction
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable loss
- Status quo order
- Vacation of interim order
- Civil Procedure Code
- 1908 Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (12) 70
Appeal from Order (ST) No.34248 of 2013 with CAAST/34249/2013
Mr. Jai Chinai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Astha, Mr. Y. M. Chaudhari i/by M Reena Salunkhe and Mr. Chhedda for the Appellant/Applicants; Ms. Yamuna Parekh for Respondent 1 & 2/Corporation; Mr. Iqbal Chagla, Senior Advocate with Mr. S. S. Pakale, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shishir Joshi i/by Swapna Rupwate for Respondent No.3; Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate, Mr. Pravin Samdhani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aniruddha Joshi, Mr. A. Gokhale, Mr. Satyen Vora, Ms. Pratiti Naphade and Mr. Atul Kshatriya, Advocates i/by M/s. Markand Gandhi & Co. for Respondent no.4.
Shree Vardhaman Sthanakvasi Jain Shravak Sangh – Dadar, by its Trustees
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, The Assistant Municipal Commissioner, Dadar Saiprasad Cooperative Housing Society, M/s. Aswatha Developers
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against order rejecting notice of motion for status quo and allowing motion to vacate status quo.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the trial court order dated 30 November 2013 and restore the status quo order.
Filing Reason
The trial court rejected the appellants' notice of motion for status quo and allowed the developer's motion to vacate the earlier status quo order.
Previous Decisions
Trial court passed ex-parte status quo order on 16 June 2010, confirmed on 19 October 2010. Subsequently, the trial court rejected the appellants' notice of motion and allowed the developer's motion to vacate the status quo on 30 November 2013.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the plaintiff's notice of motion for status quo?
Whether the trial court correctly allowed the developer's motion to vacate the status quo order?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the trial court failed to consider that the trust's structure was demolished and that the developer should not be allowed to construct.
Respondents argued that the trust had no prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was in favor of the developer who had obtained necessary permissions.
Ratio Decidendi
For an interim injunction, the plaintiff must establish a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience in its favor, and irreparable loss. The trial court's finding that the plaintiff failed to make out such a case was not perverse and did not warrant interference.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Judge on 16.06.2010 passed the order of statusquo.
The Appellants/original Plaintiffs have challenged impugned order dated 30 November 2013 passed by the learned judge, City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai.
Notice of Motion No. 1396/2010 is hereby rejected. Notice of Motion No. 3339/2013 is hereby allowed.
Procedural History
The appellants filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai. On 16 June 2010, an ex-parte status quo order was passed. On 19 October 2010, the order was confirmed. The developer filed Notice of Motion No. 3339/2013 to vacate the status quo. The trial court, on 30 November 2013, rejected the appellants' Notice of Motion No. 1396/2010 and allowed the developer's motion. The appellants appealed to the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
