Bombay High Court Grants Interim Injunction Restraining Builder from Constructing Additional Structures on Suit Plot in Breach of Development Agreement. Co-operative Housing Societies Establish Prima Facie Case of Breach of Contract and Unauthorized Construction Without Consent or Sanctioned Plan Amendment.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 70
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The plaintiffs, Sai Amrat Co-operative Housing Society Limited and Amrat Co-operative Housing Society Limited, filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, Chandru Tahilram Tolani, a builder/developer, from entering upon the suit plot and constructing additional structures or demolishing the compound wall. The plaintiffs also sought a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to complete the construction of the building as per the original sanctioned plan. The Notice of Motion was taken out for interim relief pending disposal of the suit. The facts reveal that the plaintiffs had entered into a development agreement with the defendant for construction of a building on the suit plot. The defendant allegedly started constructing additional structures beyond the agreed scope without the plaintiffs' consent and without obtaining necessary approvals from the municipal authorities. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant's actions were in breach of the development agreement and caused irreparable harm to their property rights. The defendant argued that the construction was within the sanctioned plan and that the plaintiffs had no locus standi. The court, after hearing the parties, held that the plaintiffs had made out a strong prima facie case for grant of interim injunction. The court noted that the defendant had not obtained any amendment to the sanctioned plan for the additional structures and that the plaintiffs had not consented to such construction. The balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiffs as they would suffer irreparable loss if the construction was allowed to continue. The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from entering upon the suit plot and from constructing any additional structures or demolishing the compound wall until further orders. The court also directed the defendant to maintain status quo regarding the existing structures.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Prima Facie Case - The court considered whether the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from constructing additional structures on the suit plot - Held that the plaintiffs had made out a strong prima facie case as the defendant had breached the development agreement by constructing additional structures without consent and without obtaining necessary approvals (Paras 1-10).

B) Contract Law - Development Agreement - Breach of Contract - The court examined whether the defendant's actions of constructing additional structures beyond the agreed scope constituted a breach of the development agreement - Held that the defendant's unilateral construction of additional structures without the plaintiffs' consent and without amending the sanctioned plan amounted to a clear breach of the agreement (Paras 5-8).

C) Property Law - Co-operative Housing Society - Rights of Society - The court considered whether the plaintiff societies had a right to protect the suit plot from unauthorized construction by the developer - Held that the societies, as owners of the land, had a right to seek injunction to prevent unauthorized construction that would affect their property rights (Paras 3-6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to an interim injunction restraining the defendant builder from entering upon the suit plot and constructing additional structures or demolishing the compound wall pending disposal of the suit.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the Notice of Motion and granted an interim injunction restraining Defendant No.1 from entering upon the suit plot and from constructing any additional structures or demolishing the compound wall until further orders. The court also directed the defendant to maintain status quo regarding existing structures.

Law Points

  • Prima facie case
  • balance of convenience
  • irreparable loss
  • interim injunction
  • breach of contract
  • development agreement
  • co-operative housing society
  • building construction
  • sanctioned plan
  • amendment of plan
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2006 LawText (BOM) (06) 54

Notice of Motion No.3702 of 2003 in Suit No.3961 of 2003

2006-06-05

Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.

Mr. Sunder S. Bhandary i/b M/s. Bhandary & Bhandary for the Plaintiffs; Ms. Phiroza Ankleshwaria with Mr. Mustafa Kanchwala i/b S. Mahomedbhai & Co. for Plaintiff No.1; Mr. H.C. Pimple for Defendant Nos.2 to 4

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for permanent injunction and interim relief restraining defendant from constructing additional structures on suit plot.

Remedy Sought

Plaintiffs sought interim injunction restraining Defendant No.1 from entering upon the suit plot and constructing additional structures or demolishing compound wall, and mandatory injunction to complete construction as per original sanctioned plan.

Filing Reason

Defendant builder allegedly breached development agreement by constructing additional structures without plaintiffs' consent and without amending sanctioned plan.

Issues

Whether the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction? Whether the balance of convenience lies in favor of the plaintiffs? Whether the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss if injunction is not granted?

Submissions/Arguments

Plaintiffs argued that defendant breached development agreement by constructing additional structures without consent and without obtaining necessary approvals, causing irreparable harm. Defendant contended that construction was within sanctioned plan and plaintiffs had no locus standi.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiffs had made out a strong prima facie case of breach of development agreement by the defendant, and the balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiffs as they would suffer irreparable loss if the construction was allowed to continue. Therefore, an interim injunction was warranted.

Judgment Excerpts

This Notice of Motion has been taken out for the following reliefs :- (a) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Defendant No.1 be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon’ble Court from in any manner either by himself or through his agents and servants from entering upon the suit plot... The court held that the plaintiffs had made out a strong prima facie case for grant of interim injunction.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs filed Suit No.3961 of 2003 seeking permanent injunction. They took out Notice of Motion No.3702 of 2003 for interim relief. The motion was heard and judgment reserved on 21st April 2006, and pronounced on 5th June 2006.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Quashes Penalty Imposed by MUDA on Allottee for Violation of Natural Justice — Penalty Without Show Cause Notice Set Aside. Succession Rights Recognized and Authority Directed to Follow Due Process Before Imposing Penalty.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition for Appointment to Labourer Post on Work-Charged Establishment in PWD Goa. Petitioner Entitled to Appointment Based on Select List and Offer Letter Despite Non-Issuance of Appointment Order.