Bombay High Court
Zeenat Shiraz Kasam vs Munis Anwarali Battliwala And 8 Ors on 19 November, 2019
Author: G.S.Kulkarni
Bench: G.S.Kulkarni
26.CHS283_2019.doc
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF SUMMONS (L) NO. 1973 OF 2019
IN
NOTICE OF SUMMONS NO. 848 OF 2018
IN
SUIT NO. 455 OF 2017
WITH
NOTICE OF SUMMONS NO. 792 OF 2019
IN
SUIT NO. 455 OF 2017
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 283 OF 2019
IN
SUIT NO. 455 OF 2017
Zeenat Shiraz Kasam ... Applicant/Plaintiff
V/s.
Munis Anwarali Battliwala & Ors. ... Respondents/Defendants
WITH
NOTICE OF SUMMONS (L) NO. 2064 OF 2019
IN
SUIT NO. 455 OF 2017
Kutti Kattil Gopal & Ors. ... Applicants
in the matter between
Zeenat Shiraz Kasam ... Plaintiff
V/s.
Munis Anwarali Battliwala & Ors. ... Defendants
And
M/s. Supreme Realtors ... Respondent/
Proposed Defendant no. 10
Mr. Rajendra Sorankar, Anand Pai, Durgesh Kulkarni for the
applicant/plaintiff.
Mr. Jacob Kadantot for respondent/defendant nos. 1 to 5.
Mr. Simil Purohit a/w. Sahil Saiyed for Suprema Realtors.
1/4
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2019 03:18:03 :::
26.CHS283_2019.doc
Mr. S. Vasoodev for the applicant in Chamber Summons No. 863 of 2019 in
Suit No. 455 of 2017.
Mr. Zal Andhyarujina i/b. Mangesh Sawant for the applicant in Notice of
Motion no. 2064 of 2019.
CORAM : G.S.KULKARNI, J.
DATE : 19 November 2019 P.C.:
Notice of Motion (L) No. 1973 of 2019 Learned counsel for the opponent M/s. Supreme Realtors states that his clients do not intend to file any reply to this Motion. Learned counsel for defendant nos. 1 to 5 also do not intend to file any reply to the Motion. Other defendants whosoever intends to file reply, the reply to be filed within two weeks from today. There shall be no adjournment on any count. Chamber Summons No. 283 of 2019 Prima facie it appears that M/s. Supreme Realtors interveners in the proceedings of this partition suit and interalia on whose behest this Court (G.S. Patel, J.) passed an order on 14 June 2019 permitting redevelopment of the suit property, recorded a solemn statement as made on behalf of Supreme Realtors in paragraph 4, which reads thus:
4. The anxiety on the part of the plaintiff is that the defendants might enter into an agreement with some other developer or builder on different terms. That is not possible because the defendants have instructed Mr. Behramkamdin to state that they stand by the MoU dated October 2015 with M/s. Supreme Realtors. This is redevelopment agreement that is also accepted by the applicants who are tenants/occupants. There is therefore no question of these tenants or 2/4 ::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2019 03:18:03 :::
26.CHS283_2019.doc occupants opposing the appointment of the 14th applicant who has in fact joined in the application."
2. The consequence of this statement was that Supreme Realtors would be undertaking the redevelopment by themselves and they would not enter into any agreement with any other developer as apprehended by the applicant. Accepting such statement and assurance as made on behalf of M/s. Supreme Realtors, the Court passed further order to enable M/s. Supreme Realtors to proceed with the redevelopment.
3. Now it has been brought on notice of the Court that contrary to such solemn assurance recorded by this Court, M/s. Supreme Realtors and without leave of the Court entered into a MoU dated 22 February 2019 with one Suraj Realty. A copy of the said document is annexed at Exhibit L to the Chamber Summons. As to what has been agreed by M/s. Supreme Realtors with M/s. Suraj Realty as seen from several clauses and more particularly as agreed in Clause XXIX at page 130 is certainly objectionable. Clause XXIX reads thus:
"Supreme Realtors has represented to Suraj Realty that the owners of the property are not interested in continuing with Supreme in relation to the project and are interested in appointing Suraj Realty, and therefore, Supreme has agreed to convey, transfer and assign the benefits all development rights in the property and enter into Deed of Assigned of Development Rights in favour of Suraj Realty for valuable consideration and on the terms and conditions mentioned herein and obtain necessary permission from the legal heirs of late Anwarali Ismail Battliwala in respect thereof."
4. In my opinion, considering the nature of the said agreement, M/s. 3/4 ::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2019 03:18:03 :::
26.CHS283_2019.doc Supreme Realtors could not have entered into such agreement with M/s. Suraj Realty, when the order dated 14 June 2019 passed by this Court was subsisting. This conduct of M/s. Supreme Realtors is in the teeth of the order passed by this Court on 14 June 2019 in fact warranting a contempt action. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for M/s. Supreme Realtors submits that his clients would tender an unconditional apology on an affidavit. He also makes a statement that this agreement would not be acted upon and M/s. Supreme Realtors who would now be undertaking this development by itself without assigning any of the rights to any other developer and as recorded by this Court in the order dated 14 June 2019. Certainly the said order continues to operate and subsists even today and binds the parties who are before the Court when the said order was passed.
5. To enable Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for M/s. Supreme Realtors to place on record such affidavit, stand over to 20 November 2019.
6. Needless to observe that all these would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the Chamber Summons and other proceedings.
(G.S.KULKARNI, J.) 4/4 ::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2019 03:18:03 :::