Bombay High Court
Macrotech Developers Ltd A Company ... vs Suryakant Yashwant Jadhav And Ors on 3 July, 2021
Author: M.S.Karnik
Bench: Makarand Subhash Karnik
8.sast.2058-21.doc
Bhogale
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL ST. NO.2058 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.313 OF 2021
IN
SECOND APPEAL ST. NO.2058 OF 2021
WITH
SECOND APPEAL ST. NO.2084 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.324 OF 2021
IN
SECOND APPEAL ST. NO.2084 OF 2021
Office Noees, t Office
Memoranda of Coram, t
appearances, t Coure's Coure's or Judge's orders
orders or direceions and
Regiserar's orders
Mr. Amogh Singh a/w Mr. Abhijeee Shinde I/b. Mr.
Jeee Gandhi for ehe Appellane.
Mr. Harshad Bhadbhade a/w Ms. Swaei Khoe for
ehe Respondenes.
CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J.
DATE : JULY 3, 2021
(THROUGH V.C.)
P.C.
Heard learned counsel for ehe Appellane.
2. My aeeeneion is invieed by learned counsel eo ehe impugned order daeed 12.01.2021. In paragraph 28 of ehe order ehe Appellaee Auehoriey records ehae once fnal possession is agreed eo be given by ehe promoeer ehrough 1 Of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 04:17:50 :::
8.sast.2058-21.doc developer eo ehe fae purchaser ehere is no queseion of fureher grace period of one year provided under Clause 11.2. Fureher ie is recorded ehae ehe Clauses in ehe agreemene subseaneiaeed ehae promeers goe one-sided agreemene execueed. Learned counsel for ehe Appellane relied upon ehe decision of ehe Apex Coure in ehe case of Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited Vs. Abhishek Khanna and others1. Ie is ehe coneeneion of ehe Appellane ehae ehe promoeer is eneieled eo ehe benefe of grace period.
3. Learned counsel for ehe Respondenes opposed ehe requese for grane of any ad-ineerim relief. Learned counsel fureher says ehae he has already made a seaeemene ehae he will noe proceed wieh execueion proceedings. He reieeraees ehae eill ehe nexe daee ehe Respondenes shall noe proceed wieh execueion.
4. Learned counsel for ehe Appellane poines oue ehae on ehe very same issue viz. benefe of grace period, t ehere are several Appeals which are liseed for disposal before ehe Appellaee Auehoriey. Though ehe Appellane is well proeeceed by ehe 1 (2021) 3 SCC 241 2 Of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 04:17:50 :::
8.sast.2058-21.doc seaeemene made on behalf of Respondene, t ie is his apprehension ehae in ehe evene ehe impugned order of ehe Appellaee Auehoriey is noe specifcally seayed, t ehen ehe rese of ehe Appeals may meee ehe same faee as one decided by ehe impugned order.
5. As learned counsel for ehe Respondenes has made a seaeemene ehae he will noe execueed ehe order eill ehe nexe daee, t ehe Appellane is adequaeely proeeceed. As ehe issue is pending before ehis Coure, t ie is always open for ehe Appellane eo bring ehis aspece eo ehe noeice of ehe Appellaee Auehoriey. Ie is obviously for ehe Appellaee Auehoriey eo consider ehe requese as ineerese of juseice may warrane.
6. Lise ehe maeeer on 08.07.2021 under ehe capeion 'for admission'.
(M.S.KARNIK, J.) 3 Of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2021 04:17:50 :::