Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

16) Thus, disagreement between the parties over modifying the terms of Development Agreement has necessitated this judgment though the real objective behind filing the Suit is satisfied with offer of 150 sq. ft. additional rera carpet area to each member. I accordingly proceed to deal with the rival submissions.

17) The Suit is instituted by only one member of the First Defendant- Society. The Suit is filed challenging resolutions dated 26 march 2022 and 30 September 2022 adopted by the General Body of the Society in relation to development of Society's plot. The real trigger for filing of the Suit is the notice dated 24 May 2025, convening SGBM for approval of draft development documents. After filing of the Suit, the SGBM has been conducted on 14 June 2025 and the Society has approved the draft development documents. Plaintiff has amended the Plaint for changing Resolution dated 14 June 2025. An additional prayer for damages of Rs.100 crores has also been incorporated.

23) In the meantime, Defendant No.15 paid corpus of Rs.10 crores to the first Defendant No.1-Society on 19 July 2022. After passing of Resolution dated 30 September 2022, it appears that disputes erupted amongst the members of the Society and complaints were filed against the Managing Committee members and accordingly the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies initiated various actions. It is not necessary to go into the details of those proceedings against the Managing Committee members under various provisions of the MCS Act, some of which have traveled not just to this Court but also to the Apex Court. The Society decided to execute the Development Agreement with Defendant No.15 and accordingly convened SGBM on 7 June 2025 vide notice dated 24 May 2025. At this stage, Plaintiff has filed the present Suit for injuncting the Society from conducting the SGBM which was originally scheduled to be held on 7 June 2025. Such meeting was ultimately held on 14 June 2025, and majority of members have resolved to execute the draft development documents. The SGBM dated 14 June 2025 was attended by 27 members, 21 of whom voted in favour of approving the draft documents and for executing the same, and only 6 members opposed the same. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the Society can be prevented from executing the draft development documents in the light of the above factual position.

39) Thus, Plaintiff 's grouse is not limited to execution of draft development documents. She is opposed to execution of project even through Defendant No.16, who is appointed as a developer vide GB Resolution dated 26 March 2022. Also, as observed earlier, Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.8 to 14 acquired knowledge of Defendant No.15 participating as SPV in the project. However, they did not challenge either Resolutions dated 26 March 2022 or 30 September 2022 or the action of Defendant No.15 in executing the project. It is only when the final stage of signing the development documents arrived, Plaintiff has thought of putting a spoke in the development process by filing the present Suit. Execution of draft development documents is merely a consequence of the decision taken by the Society on 26 March 2022 and 30 September 2022. The real Monday, 6 October 2025 Neeta Sawant IA(L)-16393-2025 (FC) cause for the Plaintiff arose when resolutions dated 26 March 2022 and 30 September 2022 were adopted. In my view, therefore, delay in filing the Suit and in pressing the application for temporary injunction is yet another reason why I am not inclined to grant any injunctive relief in plaintiff 's favour.

(iii) Plaintiff 's prayer temporary injunction as sought for in I.A. (L) 16393/2025 is rejected.
46) Interim Application (L) No. 16393/2025 is accordingly disposed of.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

47) After the judgment is pronounced, the learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff seeks continuation of statement recorded by this Court in the order dated 24 June 2025, under which the First Defendant-Society has agreed not to execute the draft development documents. The request is opposed by the Monday, 6 October 2025 Neeta Sawant IA(L)-16393-2025 (FC) learned counsel appearing for Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.15. Considering the fact that this Court has directed execution of draft development documents on the basis of General Body Resolution dated 14 June 2025, the interim arrangement recorded vide order dated 24 June 2025 cannot be continued any longer. The request is accordingly rejected.