Bombay High Court
Naresh Vallabhbhai Patel vs Malad Ajanta Co Operative Housing ... on 29 August, 2022
Author: G.S. Kulkarni
Bench: G.S. Kulkarni
Digitally
signed by
PRAJAKTA
PRAJAKTA
SAGAR
VARTAK
SAGAR
VARTAK
Date:
1 8-carapl 20856-22@carbpl 20870-22
2022.08.29
17:09:44
+0530
Prajakta Vartak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L.) NO. 20856 OF 2022
Naresh Vallabhbhai Patel ..Applicant
Vs.
Malad Ajanta Co-operative Housing
Society Limited & Ors. ..Respondents
AND
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L.) NO. 20870 OF 2022
Naresh Vallabhbhai Patel ..Petitioner
Vs.
Malad Ajanta Co-operative Housing
Society Limited & Ors. ..Respondents
-----
Mr. Piyush Shah with Mr. Karan Gandhi, Mr. Chirag Unadkat for
Petitioner/Applicant.
Ms. Lakshmi Murali for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Umesh Shetty with Ms. Sharila D'Souza and Mr. Gopalkrishna Nayak
i/b. Flavia Legal for Respondent Nos.4 & 6.
Ms. Apoorva Gupte, Mr. Vijay Sharma and Mr. Ramesh Gupta i/b. Mr.
Vijay Sharma for Respondent No.5.
-----
CORAM : G.S. KULKARNI, J.
DATE : AUGUST 29, 2022.
P.C.:
1. Let a complete copy of the petition be served on respondent no.2
2. In so far as respondent no.2 is concerned, there is an objection to the effect that a lesser area and not a proportionate area which is being offered to other members of the society, is being offered to respondent no.2 which is a Co-operative Credit Society of the Retired Military Employees. Prima facie, if this is the situation, then certainly respondent no.2 would be entitled to contend that the area in parity with the others will be required to be allotted to it in the redeveloped premises.
2 8-carapl 20856-22@carbpl 20870-22
3. The petitioner shall place on record an affidavit pointing out the area which is being offered to other members of the society including corpus as also the amounts, which are being paid to the other members of the society. Let the same be filed on or before the adjourned date of hearing and copy of the affidavit be served on all the respondents.
4. In so far as respondent nos.4 and 6 are concerned, in principal, Mr. Shetty, learned counsel would contend that his clients would not have any objection to hand over their premises to the petitioner- developer for the purpose of redevelopment.
5. It appears that respondent no.3 has expired. The petitioner thus needs to take steps to implead the proper parties to the petition. Let such exercise be undertaken on or before the adjourned date of hearing.
6. Let the reply affidavit be placed on record after a complete copy of the petition is served on respondent no.2. If the other respondents intend to file reply affidavits, they are free to do so, including respondent no.5 who appears to have inter se dispute with respondent nos.4 and 6.
7. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.
8. Parties are put to notice that on the adjourned date of hearing, the proceedings shall be taken up for hearing and an endeavour would be made to pass an appropriate order considering the fact that the building is now required to be vacated.
9. Stand over to 12 September, 2022 (H.O.B.).
[G.S. KULKARNI, J.]