Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. When the present Notice of Motion was awaiting final hearing in this Court, the following events transpired:

(i) As per the directions of this Court, the Plaintiff forwarded the Drafts of the Individual Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements to Defendants Nos.1 to 6.
(ii) During the course of the hearing of the present Notice of Motion, Defendants Nos. 5 and 6 agreed to vacate their respective flats as and when required, vide Consent Terms dated 8th June 2016.
8.21 That Advocate Mr. Rajendra Mishra had no authority to file the present Suit.
8.22 That Defendant No. 7 is not a necessary party to the present Suit.
8.23 That the decision of Defendant No. 7 to execute individual permanent alternate accommodation agreement with the Plaintiff's Members after the CC, is in violation of Clause 56 of the IOD and the Plaintiff ought not to support it.
8.24 That Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have not received the share certificates in respect of the flats and that an attempt was made by some persons to issue fabricated share certificates. In view thereof, there is an ambiguity in respect of their status as Members of the Plaintiff. 8.25 That M/s. Vistaar Architects was appointed by original Delite Society and there is no Special General Body meeting resolution passed by the Plaintiff to appoint M/s. Vistaar Architects as PMC for the present project.
18. The Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Plaintiff has in response to the aforestated objections raised by Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 taken me through the Affidavits and the written submissions and also the two compilations filed by the Plaintiff with its Affidavit in Rejoinder dated 12th July, 2016 and has submitted that the objections raised by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are untenable, baseless and false and are raised only with a view to inconvenience the 62 Members of the Society and their family members who are co-operating in the redevelopment process. It is also submitted that the approach of Defendant No. 4 is mala fide and driven by selfish motives and personal interest, besides being devoid of merit. It is submitted that Defendant No. 4 is fully aware of the entire redevelopment process of the Plaintiff Society since he has attended all the meetings of the Plaintiff Society, as admitted by him in paragraph 2 of his Affidavit in Reply dated 29th April, 2016. The true reason behind Defendant No. 4's obstruction is his failed attempt to claim interest in and/or purchase the Dhobi Ghat area i.e. the encroached area of the land of the Plaintiff Society. In all the meetings of the Plaintiff, Defendant No. 4 has been raising only this issue of the Dhobi Ghat area, which is clear from the Minutes of the Special General Body Meeting dated 6th March, 2016 at page 199 of the plaint and letters dated 20th February, 2015, 28th March, 2015 and 21st May, 2015 at pages 287- 299 of Compilation Part-II tendered by the Plaintiff. It is also pointed out that Defendant No. 4 himself had proposed the name of Defendant No. 7 as a Developer for the reconstruction of the Plaintiff's building in the Meeting of the Plaintiff Society held on 13th April, 2014. In fact, Defendant No. 4 has admitted that he has received all the necessary documents requested from the Plaintiff, save and except registered development agreement, registered permanent alternate accommodation agreements/individual agreements and TDR documents (i.e. proof of purchase of TDR), which grievance is clearly misconceived, since these documents have not yet been executed and are not in existence. It is therefore once again submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff that the above Notice of Motion be made absolute with costs.

25.12 In the Special General Body Meeting held on 6th March 2016, to discuss the progress of the re-development process, the Members of the Plaintiff passed a resolution by an overwhelming majority (of 48 out of 50 members) to initiate appropriate legal action against the non-co-operative members of the Plaintiff who were refusing to vacate their respective flats on or before 31st March 2016. By the time the above Suit was filed in April, 2016, around 53 Members apprehending a threat to their life and property, and the lives of their family members vacated their flats and started residing outside in temporary alternate accommodation. 25.13 As late as on 11th July, 2016, 62 of the 66 Members of the Plaintiff have signed Declarations-cum-Undertaking giving consent to the redevelopment process and for the appointment of Defendant No.7. 25.14 From the aforesaid facts it is clear that every step/action taken by the Society towards redevelopment process is after seeking approval of the General Body of the Members who have given overwhelming support to all the actions/proposals/resolutions passed at the various Meetings of the Society held for the purpose of redevelopment of its property. Thus the Society's conduct has throughout been transparent, and no decisions/actions have been taken by the Society without taking its Members into confidence. The non-co-operative Members have till date not challenged any of the resolutions passed at the Special General Body Meetings of the Plaintiff, or the writing executed by them, in any court of law. 62 out of 66 Members of the Society are supporting the redevelopment process and as late as on 11th July, 2016, all the 62 Members of the Plaintiff have signed a Declaration-cum-Undertaking giving consent to the redevelopment process and appointment of Defendant No.7. 53 Members of the Society fearing a threat to their lives and property have already vacated their flats and started residing outside in transit accommodation. During the pendency of the present Notice of Motion as per the directions of this Court, the Plaintiff has forwarded the drafts of the individual Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements to the Defendant Nos. 1 to 6; Defendant No. 7 obtained sanction letters for the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 7.5 Crores, which is to be handed over to the Plaintiff when Defendant No. 7 obtains vacant possession of the suit building; and Defendant No. 7 (Developer) has submitted his Affidavit-cum-Undertaking dated 15 th June 2016, wherein he has inter alia committed and undertaken to this Court to fulfil all its obligations as per the Offer Letter dated 7/3/2014 and the draft Development Agreement approved by the Plaintiff vide its Resolution dated 24/1/2016 passed in its Special General Body Meeting, and complete the project within the prescribed time.