Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Sairaj                                          5 of 19





                                                              WP-2183-2021 (final).doc

submit that the judgment in the case of The Ruby Emerald Diamond Park Co-operative Housing Society (supra) in fact takes into consideration the circumstances that three colonies therein were situated on separate independent plots and had independent roads, water pumping stations, electricity meters as also the planning was of three different types which is not so in the present case. He submits that the bifurcation order firstly does not record any finding that it is in the interest of members that the Society should be bifurcated and secondly, the directions place the responsibility of sub-division on Respondent No.2-Society. He submits that the Application for bifurcation demonstrates that the disputes are referable to Section 91 of MCS Act. He would further submit that Clause No. 46 of the Sale Agreement provides that interest in the said building is impartible. He submits that the property is leased by City and Industrial Development Corporation, who has filed Affidavit-in-reply stating that sub-division/bifurcation of the plot on which buildings have already been constructed and occupancy certificate is obtained, is not allowed. He submits that in view thereof, the property cannot be sub-divided and would lead to further complications.