{"id":114824,"date":"2009-11-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-pessumal-pamandas-menghrajani-on-6-november-2009"},"modified":"2016-09-10T09:37:52","modified_gmt":"2016-09-10T04:07:52","slug":"maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-pessumal-pamandas-menghrajani-on-6-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-pessumal-pamandas-menghrajani-on-6-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Maharashtra Housing And Area vs Pessumal Pamandas Menghrajani on 6 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Maharashtra Housing And Area vs Pessumal Pamandas Menghrajani on 6 November, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: P. B. Majmudar, R. C. Chavan<\/div>\n
                                      1\n\n    Lgc\n\n\n\n\n                                                                           \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n              ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDIC\/TION\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n                         APPEAL NO.343 OF 2009\n                                   IN\n                          SUIT NO.3902 OF 1992\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n    1.  Maharashtra Housing and Area                  ]\n         Development Authority, Griha Nirman          ]\n         Bhavan, Bandra(East), Mumbai-400051          ] \n\n\n\n\n                                         \n                                                      ]\n    2.  The Deputy Chief Executive (Works)\n                             ig                       ]\n          Mumbai Housing and Area Development         ]\n          Board, Griha Nirman Bhavan,                 ]\n          Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051             ]\n                           \n                                                      ]\n    3.   The Executive Engineer, Housing              ]\n          Bandra Division, Mumbai Housing             ]\n          Area Development Board, Griha Nirman        ]......  Appellants\n            \n\n\n          Bhavan, Bandra(East), Mumbai-400051         ]Org.Defendants\n         \n\n\n\n                        Versus\n\n    Pessumal Pamandas Menghrajani                     ]\n\n\n\n\n\n    carrying on business and Civil Engineers and      ]\n    Government Contractors, in the firm name          ]\n    and style of Jeevan Construction as Sole          ]\n    Proprietor thereof and having his office at       ] Respondent<\/pre>\n
    4\/54, Daulat Nagar, Thane(East)-400 603           ]Org.Plaintiff<\/p>\n
    Mr.P G Lad, AGP, for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr.Pessumal Pamandas Menghrajani – respondent-  present in person.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:16:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
                                            CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR &<\/p>\n
                                                     R.C.CHAVAN,  JJ
\n                                            DATED  : NOVEMBER 06, 2009<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER R.C.CHAVAN, J.)<\/p>\n
    1.           This   appeal   is   directed   against   the   Judgment   dated   22nd <\/p>\n
    August,   2008,   delivered   by   a   learned   Single   Judge   of   this   Court <\/p>\n
    whereby the learned Single Judge decreed the respondent\/plaintiff’s <\/p>\n
    suit for payment of interest over the amount which was denied to the <\/p>\n
    respondent\/plaintiff by the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
    2.           The facts, which are material for deciding this Appeal, are <\/p>\n
    as under :-\n<\/p>\n
                 The   appellants   had   engaged   the   services   of   the <\/p>\n
    respondent\/plaintiff   as   a   Contractor   for   carrying   out   certain   civil <\/p>\n
    works. On 28\/1\/1987 a work order to that effect was issued.   The <\/p>\n
    said   work   was   completed   on   28\/2\/1988.     The   respondent\/plaintiff <\/p>\n
    raised   certain   claims   in   respect   of   additional   material   used   and <\/p>\n
    additional   works     like   use   of   brick   bats   in   place   of   bricks,   use   of <\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:16:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
    pumps for de-watering etc.  The claims which the respondent\/plaintiff <\/p>\n
    had raised from time to time were not entertained by the appellants-\n<\/p>\n
    Authorities.  Eventually on  26\/10\/1990 the Deputy Chief Engineer of <\/p>\n
    the   appellants   held   that   the   plaintiff   was   entitled   to   sum   of   Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    1,45,764\/- as against the various claims of the plaintiff amounting to <\/p>\n
    Rs.1,50,535.35.   Out of these amounts, a sum of Rs.1,20,000\/- was <\/p>\n
    paid  to  the plaintiff  on  3\/12\/1991  and further  sum  of Rs.25,764\/-\n<\/p>\n
    was paid thereafter on 11\/3\/1992.\n<\/p>\n
    3.          Since the plaintiff was kept out of the amounts due, after <\/p>\n
    issuing the notice under Section 173 of the Maharashtra Housing and <\/p>\n
    Area Development Act, 1976, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of <\/p>\n
    the amount of interest at the rate of 21% per annum on the amounts <\/p>\n
    denied   to   the   plaintiff   from   time   to   time,   which   came   to   Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    1,31,345.90   on   the   date   of   the   suit.     The   plaintiff   claimed   further <\/p>\n
    interest at the rate of 21% per annum on this sum from the date of <\/p>\n
    the suit till realization.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:16:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
    4.          By a Written Statement, the appellants\/Defendants denied <\/p>\n
    the liability to pay such interest, though they admitted that they had <\/p>\n
    paid the sum of Rs.1,45,764\/- as against the claim of the plaintiff to <\/p>\n
    the   tune   of   Rs.1,50,535.35   after   the   disputes   were   raised   by   the <\/p>\n
    plaintiff.  It was contended that the contract which the appellants had <\/p>\n
    entered into with the plaintiff did not contain any clause for payment <\/p>\n
    of any interest.   They also raised various other contentions like the <\/p>\n
    suit being not tenable etc.<\/p>\n
    5.          On these pleadings, three issues were struck  by the learned <\/p>\n
    Single Judge namely as to whether the plaintiff proves that the due <\/p>\n
    and payable amounts were delayed for a long time from the due dates <\/p>\n
    by the defendants, whether the plaintiff was entitled to the interest on <\/p>\n
    the delayed payment from the defendants, and whether the plaintiff <\/p>\n
    was entitled to payment of Rs.1,31,345.90  with interest thereon @ <\/p>\n
    21%  p.a.  from  the  date   of suit   till  judgment.      The  learned  Single <\/p>\n
    Judge  answered the first  two issues in the affirmative  and ordered <\/p>\n
    payment of Rs.1,31,345.90 with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:16:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
    suit till  realisation, after considering the evidence tendered.   The oral <\/p>\n
    evidence   comprises   of   only   the   testimony   of   the   plaintiff.     The <\/p>\n
    appellants   had   not   chosen   to   tender   any   oral   evidence   before   the <\/p>\n
    Court.   Aggrieved   by   the   judgment,   the   appellants   are   before   this <\/p>\n
    Court.\n<\/p>\n
    6.          We   have   heard   the   learned   AGP   Shri   P   G   Lad   for   the <\/p>\n
    appellants\/Defendants and the respondent\/plaintiff who is present in <\/p>\n
    person.   The first point that arises for our consideration is, whether <\/p>\n
    the learned Single Judge rightly held that amounts due and payable <\/p>\n
    were withheld by the appellants without any justification. The learned <\/p>\n
    AGP  even questioned the entitlement of the respondent\/plaintiff  to <\/p>\n
    the amounts already paid. It is submitted by the learned AGP that the <\/p>\n
    Deputy Chief Engineer came to the conclusion of awarding amounts <\/p>\n
    claimed by the plaintiff by liberally considering the plaintiff’s claim, <\/p>\n
    though the same was required tobe rejected.It would be improper and <\/p>\n
    impermissible to re-open the question of entitlement of the plaintiff to <\/p>\n
    the amounts for various additional items of work carried out by him, <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:16:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
    since the appellants\/Defendants had already paid those amounts.  The <\/p>\n
    elaborate order passed by the Deputy Chief Engineer on 26\/10\/1990, <\/p>\n
    which has been considered by the learned Single Judge, shows that <\/p>\n
    the Deputy Chief Engineer had found that the authorities were wrong <\/p>\n
    in denying to the plaintiff’s various amounts which he had claimed.\n<\/p>\n
    The learned Single Judge has quoted in Para 48, the observation of <\/p>\n
    the Deputy Chief Engineer that <\/p>\n
                 “……   this   entire   case   is   not   dealt   properly   since
\n                 beginning   in   spite   of   numerous\/constant  <\/p>\n
                 communication   from   the   Agency   and   no   timely
\n                 action   from   the   Board   which   has   resulted   into  <\/p>\n
                 embarrassing position and this is liable for creating
\n                 incident of contractual complications.”\n<\/p>\n
                  In the face of this it is not open to the appellants to re-agitate <\/p>\n
    the question of respondent’s entitlement to the amounts claimed.\n<\/p>\n
    7.         The   learned   AGP   submitted   that   there   was   no   delay   in <\/p>\n
    payment of amounts to the plaintiff, since the amounts had to be first <\/p>\n
    ascertained   by   an   “adjudication”   by   the   Deputy   Chief   Officer <\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:16:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
    (Engineer), which was concluded only on 26\/10\/1990.  The amounts <\/p>\n
    found due were promptly paid thereafter.  This contention has to be <\/p>\n
    rejected   for   two   reasons.   Firstly,   the   plaintiff   had   been   raising   his <\/p>\n
    claims right since the work was executed in 1988.  “Decision” by the <\/p>\n
    Deputy Chief  Engineer of  the appellants,  to whom the claims were <\/p>\n
    presumably   referable   under   the   contract,   cannot   be   equated   to   an <\/p>\n
    independent   adjudication,   over   which   parties   may   not   have   any <\/p>\n
    control. The appellant has not been able to show what prevented the <\/p>\n
    Deputy Chief Engineer to promptly decide the claim in 1988 itself. If <\/p>\n
    when the appellant’s  own authorities chose to sit over the matter for <\/p>\n
    over two years, the appellant cannot take benefit of delay in decision <\/p>\n
    making.  And,  ironically,  even after the decision,  the appellant  took <\/p>\n
    more than one year to pay the amounts which even according to the <\/p>\n
    appellant’s Deputy Chief Engineer, the plaintiff was entitled to.\n<\/p>\n
    8.          The   appellant   cannot   take   advantage   of   administrative <\/p>\n
    procedural delays since it was an internal matter of the appellants for <\/p>\n
    which   the   respondent\/plaintiff   could   not   be   made   to   suffer.   We <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:16:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                               8<\/span><\/p>\n
    therefore   hold   that   the   learned   Single   Judge   has   rightly   concluded <\/p>\n
    that   the   amounts   due   and   payable   were   withheld   without <\/p>\n
    justification.\n<\/p>\n
    9.          This   takes   us   to   next   question   as   to   whether   this   delay <\/p>\n
    entitled the plaintiff to claim interest from the date of completion of <\/p>\n
    work   till   payment   was   actually   made.   The   learned   AGP   Shri   Lad <\/p>\n
    appearing for the appellants submitted that the plaintiff had admitted <\/p>\n
    in   his   cross   examination   that   there   was   no   term   in   the   contract <\/p>\n
    providing for payment of any interest to the plaintiff, and therefore, <\/p>\n
    there was no contractual foundation for the claim of the plaintiff in <\/p>\n
    respect of interest.   He further submitted that the interest could not <\/p>\n
    have been paid even under the Interest Act since the sum was not <\/p>\n
    ascertained till the adjudication,  i.e. till 26\/10\/1990, on which date <\/p>\n
    the Deputy Chief Engineer decided that the sum of Rs.1,45,764\/- was <\/p>\n
    payable to the plaintiff.   Therefore, he submitted that first, since the <\/p>\n
    sums   claimed   by   the   plaintiff   were   not   ascertained,   and   secondly, <\/p>\n
    since there was no adjudication ascertaining the sums claimed, there <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:16:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                              9<\/span><\/p>\n
    was no liability to pay interest. He also submitted that the judicial <\/p>\n
    pronouncements on this question, right from the Privy Council, would <\/p>\n
    rule out the payment of interest to the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
    10.       For this purpose he relied upon the judgment of the Privy <\/p>\n
    Council in the case of  Maine and New Brunswick Electrical Power <\/p>\n
    Co. Ltd. v\/s. Alice M Hart, reported in AIR 1929 Privy Council 185.\n<\/p>\n
    In that case, the Board considered the question of paying the interest <\/p>\n
    and observed in the last penultimate para of the judgment as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                “Hart   conveyed   the   property   purchased   to   the
\n                defendants.   He   received   from   the   defendants   the  <\/p>\n
                stock   to   be   transferred   to   him,   and   he   accepted  <\/p>\n
                from the defendants, as under the contract he was
\n                bound   to   do,   covenants   under   seal   to   perform  <\/p>\n
                certain   obligations   of   a   continuing   character
\n                involving the payment from time to time of sums of
\n                money.     Upon   the   stock   having   been   allotted   or
\n                transferred to Hart and the covenants having been  <\/p>\n
                executed,  Hart  had received  all  the  consideration
\n                moving   from   the   defendants   to   him   under   the
\n                contract. The plaintiff, as Hart’s successor-in-tilte,  <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:16:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                               10<\/span><\/p>\n
                 cannot,   and   as   appears   from   her   statement   of  <\/p>\n
                 claim,   does   not   sue   upon   the   contract,   which   is
\n                 fully executed : she sues upon the covenants. Those  <\/p>\n
                 covenants   must   be   construed   according   to   the
\n                 ordinary rules of construction : and if so construed,  <\/p>\n
                 they do not give the plaintiff interest, she cannot
\n                 claim interest unless it is given to her at common
\n                 law   or   under   statute.   There   is   no   place   in   the  <\/p>\n
                 matter   for   the   exercise   of   equitable   jurisdiction  <\/p>\n
                 and,   therefore,   no   rule   of   equity   in   regard   to
\n                 interest can have any application.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    11.        In the same year, the Judicial Commissioner at Nagpur in <\/p>\n
    the   matter  of  P  P  Deo   v\/s.  Narayan   and  others,  reported   in  AIR <\/p>\n
    1929 Nagpur 170 held that considering the provisions of Interest Act, <\/p>\n
    it was not correct to say that the Courts have power to award interest <\/p>\n
    in all cases where money due is withheld.  As the discussion to follow <\/p>\n
    would unfold, the claim in the suit is for compensation for the loss <\/p>\n
    caused due to delayed payment, and “interest” is only a measure to <\/p>\n
    compute the loss. Viewed thus, in our view, the judgments would be <\/p>\n
    unhelpful.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:16:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                              11<\/span><\/p>\n
    12.       Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case <\/p>\n
    of   Thawardas Pherumal and anr. v\/s Union of India  reported in <\/p>\n
    AIR 1955 SC 468, the learned AGP Shri Lad submitted that interest <\/p>\n
    would not be payable as of rule unless certain conditions referred to <\/p>\n
    by the Supreme Court in Para 30 of the said judgment were fulfilled.\n<\/p>\n
    In para 30 of the Judgment, the Supreme Court held as under :-\n<\/p>\n
               “The   Interest   Act,   1939   applies,   as   interest   is   not
\n               otherwise payable by law in this kind of case (see —\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               `B N Ry. Co. v. Ruttanji Ramji’, AIR<\/a> 1938 PC 67
\n               (J), but even if it be assumed that an arbitrator is a  <\/p>\n
               “Court” within the meaning of that Act, (a fact that
\n               by no means appears to be the case), the following  <\/p>\n
               among   other   conditions   must   be   fulfilled   before
\n               interest can be awarded under the Act :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (1)          there must be a debt or a sum certain,\n               (2)          it must be payable at a certain time or  \n                            otherwise;\n\n\n\n\n\n               (3)          these debts or sums must be payable by  \n                            virtue   of   some   written   contract   at   a  \n                            certain time;\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:16:24 :::<\/span>\n                                             12<\/span>\n\n                 (4)         There   must   have   been   a   demand   in  \n\n\n\n\n                                                                                     \n                             writing   stating   that   interest   will   be  \n                             demanded from the date of the demand.\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n                 Not   one   of   these   elements   is   present,   so   the \n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n<\/pre>\n
                 arbitrator erred in law in thinking that he had the
\n                 power to allow interest simply because he thought
\n                 the demand was reasonable.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    13.<\/p>\n
                Therefore according to the learned AGP, in this case, since <\/p>\n
    sums   claimed   were   not   ascertained   till   the   adjudications   were <\/p>\n
    completed on 26\/10\/1990, there is absolutely no question of payment <\/p>\n
    of any interest. This contention is fallacious. It is not that the plaintiff <\/p>\n
    had set his claims to any nebulous amounts.   He had quantified his <\/p>\n
    claim on each items right from the beginning and his first salvo to the <\/p>\n
    appellants   itself   would   show   that   he   had   claimed   certain   amounts.\n<\/p>\n
    Whether   this   claim   was   acceptable   to   the   appellants’   authorities <\/p>\n
    would   not   be   determinative   of   question   whether   the   sum   was <\/p>\n
    ascertained or not.  A reference to the Deputy Chief Engineer’s order <\/p>\n
    dated 26\/10\/1990 would itself show that claims for specific sums had <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:16:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                               13<\/span><\/p>\n
    been raised   and had been considered by him. The respondent had <\/p>\n
    filed a copy of letter dated 12\/10\/1988 written by him, (Article No.5, <\/p>\n
    referred  to  in  Q.No.88  in   plaintiff’s  cross-examination   for  appellant <\/p>\n
    taken   on   4\/10\/2007).     This   letter   not   only   specifies   the   amount <\/p>\n
    claimed, but also raises specific demand of interest at 21% p.a. from <\/p>\n
    27.5.1988   i.e.   after   leaving   a   three   months   grace   period   after <\/p>\n
    completion of work on 28.2.1988.  Thus the requirements mentioned <\/p>\n
    in the case of Thawardas are complied.\n<\/p>\n
    14.         In   her   erudite   judgment,   the   learned   Single   Judge   has <\/p>\n
    carefully considered this aspect and has held that the interest is not <\/p>\n
    only payable if the contract so provides or statute so provides, but also <\/p>\n
    under the Common Law.  In this context, the learned Single Judge has <\/p>\n
    considered   the   provisions   of   Section   3   of   the   Interest   Act   and   has <\/p>\n
    found   that   the   interest   could   have   been   ordered   to   be   paid   since <\/p>\n
    written notice claiming the amount had been given and in spite of this <\/p>\n
    notice the amounts claimed were not paid. It would not have been <\/p>\n
    proper   to   deny   interest   to   the   respondent\/plaintiff   on   the   amount <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:16:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                                14<\/span><\/p>\n
    which he had claimed to have borrowed for completing the work of <\/p>\n
    the appellants.  As  early  as on  28.12.1988, the plaintiff  had,  by his <\/p>\n
    letter, claimed interest as compensation. It may be seen that even the <\/p>\n
    appellant’s   Q.No.61   in   the   cross   examination   of   the   plaintiff   on <\/p>\n
    19\/12\/2007would show that interest was claimed as compensation.\n<\/p>\n
    Therefore,   since   the   respondent\/plaintiff   had   incurred   expenditure <\/p>\n
    when the work was completed on 28\/2\/1988, he would be entitled to <\/p>\n
    be compensated for interest, he was required to pay from 28\/5\/1988 <\/p>\n
    i.e. after the three months of the grace period. The plaintiff’s evidence <\/p>\n
    in   this   regard   was   not   rebutted   since   appellant   did   not   choose   to <\/p>\n
    tender   any   evidence.   In   view   of   this,   there   is   no   substance   in   the <\/p>\n
    contention of the learned AGP that the learned Single Judge erred in <\/p>\n
    awarding the interest, which was in the nature of compensation for <\/p>\n
    the interest which plaintiff was required to pay on amounts borrowed <\/p>\n
    from his bank.\n<\/p>\n
    15.          This   takes   us   to   the   next   submission   of   the   learned   AGP <\/p>\n
    that the learned Single Judge erred in awarding the interest at 12% <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:16:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                               15<\/span><\/p>\n
    per annum as there was no warrant and no evidence for arriving at <\/p>\n
    such a rate.   The learned AGP may be right in submitting that there <\/p>\n
    was no witness examined by the plaintiff from his Bank to prove that <\/p>\n
    he had been paying interest on the amount borrowed.   But a letter <\/p>\n
    from  bank, Article  25, produced by him before  the Court  has been <\/p>\n
    considered by the learned Single Judge in Para 68 of the judgment, <\/p>\n
    which shows that plaintiff was paying interest at 17.34% p.a. on the <\/p>\n
    credit facilities availed by him. Apart from that award of interest at <\/p>\n
    12%   per   annum,   on   the   amounts   which   had   been   denied   to   the <\/p>\n
    plaintiff,   could   not   be   called   erroneous,   considering   the   prevailing <\/p>\n
    rate   of   the   interest   in   the   market.   This   was   in   the   nature   of <\/p>\n
    compensation for the loss caused, either by being required to actually <\/p>\n
    incur this expense by paying interest to his bank or by being denied <\/p>\n
    the use of these amounts.\n<\/p>\n
    16.         The learned AGP  lastly  submitted that the  learned Single <\/p>\n
    Judge has also awarded interest on the decretal amount from the date <\/p>\n
    of   the   suit   till   realization,   which   amounts   to  awarding   the   interest <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:16:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                              16<\/span><\/p>\n
    over   interest     and   such   a   compound   interest   could   not   have   been <\/p>\n
    granted in a suit for recovery of money.  The proposition that interest <\/p>\n
    would not be awarded on interest is correct. But this is a peculiar case <\/p>\n
    where the plaintiff has been kept out of the money due and therefore <\/p>\n
    he   incurred   a   loss   which   has   been   compensated   by   the   interest <\/p>\n
    awarded by the learned Judge. Therefore, award of interest on such <\/p>\n
    amounts,   which   are   in   the   nature   of   compensation,   and   which   the <\/p>\n
    plaintiff   was   deprived   of,   cannot   be   termed   as   interest   over   the <\/p>\n
    interest.     Viewed  pragmatically,   the   plaintiff   could   be   said   to   have <\/p>\n
    been awarded damages for the tort of being kept out of the amounts <\/p>\n
    which were due. Therefore, interest which is awarded from the date <\/p>\n
    of institution of the suit could be treated as interest on the amount of <\/p>\n
    compensation to which the plaintiff was entitled on being kept out of <\/p>\n
    amount due.   In view of this, there is no merit in this Appeal which is <\/p>\n
    accordingly dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
                Sd\/-                                                             sd\/-\n\n\n\n\n\n    [R.C.CHAVAN,J]                                               [P.B.MAJMUDAR,J]\n\n\n\n\n                                                               ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:16:24 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Maharashtra Housing And Area vs Pessumal Pamandas Menghrajani on 6 November, 2009 Bench: P. B. Majmudar, R. C. Chavan 1 Lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDIC\/TION APPEAL NO.343 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.3902 OF 1992 1. Maharashtra Housing and Area ] Development Authority, Griha Nirman […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-114824","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMaharashtra Housing And Area vs Pessumal Pamandas Menghrajani on 6 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-pessumal-pamandas-menghrajani-on-6-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Maharashtra Housing And Area vs Pessumal Pamandas Menghrajani on 6 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-pessumal-pamandas-menghrajani-on-6-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-10T04:07:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-pessumal-pamandas-menghrajani-on-6-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-pessumal-pamandas-menghrajani-on-6-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Maharashtra Housing And Area vs Pessumal Pamandas Menghrajani on 6 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-10T04:07:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-pessumal-pamandas-menghrajani-on-6-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2666,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-pessumal-pamandas-menghrajani-on-6-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-pessumal-pamandas-menghrajani-on-6-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-pessumal-pamandas-menghrajani-on-6-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Maharashtra Housing And Area vs Pessumal Pamandas Menghrajani on 6 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-10T04:07:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-pessumal-pamandas-menghrajani-on-6-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-pessumal-pamandas-menghrajani-on-6-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-pessumal-pamandas-menghrajani-on-6-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Maharashtra Housing And Area vs Pessumal Pamandas Menghrajani on 6 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Maharashtra Housing And Area vs Pessumal Pamandas Menghrajani on 6 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-pessumal-pamandas-menghrajani-on-6-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Maharashtra Housing And Area vs Pessumal Pamandas Menghrajani on 6 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-pessumal-pamandas-menghrajani-on-6-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-10T04:07:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-pessumal-pamandas-menghrajani-on-6-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-pessumal-pamandas-menghrajani-on-6-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Maharashtra Housing And Area vs Pessumal Pamandas Menghrajani on 6 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-10T04:07:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-pessumal-pamandas-menghrajani-on-6-november-2009"},"wordCount":2666,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-pessumal-pamandas-menghrajani-on-6-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-pessumal-pamandas-menghrajani-on-6-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-pessumal-pamandas-menghrajani-on-6-november-2009","name":"Maharashtra Housing And Area vs Pessumal Pamandas Menghrajani on 6 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-10T04:07:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-pessumal-pamandas-menghrajani-on-6-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-pessumal-pamandas-menghrajani-on-6-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-housing-and-area-vs-pessumal-pamandas-menghrajani-on-6-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Maharashtra Housing And Area vs Pessumal Pamandas Menghrajani on 6 November, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114824","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=114824"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114824\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=114824"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=114824"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=114824"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}