Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

ment scheme is sanctioned by fraud, misrepresentation or collusion. It is submitted that in the present matter, it is not the case of the Respondents that the redevelopment scheme is sanctioned by committing a fraud, misrepresentation or collusion.

This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order

35. Mr.Vashi has pointed out that 71 members of the Society who are staying in the dilapidated Buildings 'C', 'D', 'E' and 'G' by their individual Affidavits filed in the present Writ Petition have confirmed that they are willing to shift to Building C-2 upon the same being constructed. Mr. Vashi has submitted that unless the occupants of Buildings 'A',' B' and 'F' vacate their respective tenements, the work pertaining to construction of Building C-2 cannot commence, thereby forcing about 90 families to continue residing in dilapidated buildings and cause inconvenience to them on false and frivolous pretext that the Developer has constructed two additional floors in Building C-1 creating danger to the RCC structure of the building and that the Developer has acted highhandedly without considering several defects in construction pointed out by the members. Mr. Vashi, has therefore submitted that the Petitioners, without prejudice to their rights and contentions, are willing to have the structural stability of Building C-1 as well as the alleged defects in construction examined by an independent Architect appointed by this Court and are also willing to rectify the alleged defects in construction of the said Building C-1 if the same are confirmed by the architect so appointed. However, Mr. Vashi submitted that the objecting Respondents to prove their bonafides should also agree that if the said Architect appointed by the Court confirms that the building is safe for occupation and that there are no This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order defects in the construction or defect/s(if any) pointed out by the said Architect, is rectified by Petitioner No.2 to the satisfaction of the said Architect, the objecting Respondents currently residing in Buildings 'A', 'B' and 'F' shall thereafter forthwith shift to the said Building C-1. However, the objecting Respondents of Buildings 'A', 'B' and 'F' who are represented by their respective Advocates before this Court have turned down the offer made by Mr. Vashi on behalf of the Petitioners. In the alternative Mr. Vashi has also submitted that if for any reason the disputants who have filed Dispute No. CC-IV/187 of 2005 ultimately succeed in having the minutes of the meetings of the Society set aside, the Petitioner Society shall get one of the buildings (i.e. Buildings 'C', 'D', 'E' and 'G' ) repaired and permanently shift them to the said building, thereby causing no prejudice to them. Mr. Vashi has therefore submitted that the conduct of the opposing occupants in not accepting the above proposal goes to show that the objections raised by some of the occupants are only for the sake of raising objections, which are in fact completely lacking in bonafides.

Rejection of the offer made by Mr. Vashi before this Court to have the building examined by an independent architect appointed by this Court provided that the opposing members agree to accept the decision of the said architect as final, also brings out the lack of genuineness in the dispute raised by the objecting members qua the structural stability and the defects in construction of Building C-1.

53. The Co-operative Appellate Court has also refused This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order relief to the Society on the ground that at the interim stage orders/directions pertaining to allotment of flats in the new building cannot be passed. Mr. Bharucha the learned advocate appearing for some of the opposing Respondents has also relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others Vs. Ramsukhi Devi 2005 I SCC 733; State of UP Vs. Vishweshwar 1995 Supp.3 SCC 590 and Bharat Bhusan Sonaji Kshirsagar (Dr.) Vs. Abdul Khalik Mohd. Musa and others 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 593; wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of practically granting the principal reliefs at the interim stage.