{"id":206989,"date":"2009-03-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahabir-nuniwal-vs-neptune-co-operative-housing-on-26-march-2009"},"modified":"2017-01-21T10:24:38","modified_gmt":"2017-01-21T04:54:38","slug":"mahabir-nuniwal-vs-neptune-co-operative-housing-on-26-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahabir-nuniwal-vs-neptune-co-operative-housing-on-26-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Mahabir Nuniwal vs Neptune Co-Operative Housing on 26 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Mahabir Nuniwal vs Neptune Co-Operative Housing on 26 March, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: Anoop V.Mohta<\/div>\n
dgm\n gm                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n                          APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n                                WRIT PETITION NO.3030 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                               \n           Mahabir Nuniwal, Age 54,\n           Indian Inhabitant, of Mumbai,\n           residing at K, D.N.Nagar, J.P.Road,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n           Andheri (West), Mumbai 400058                                           Petitioner\n                                                                (Orig.Disputant)\n\n                          Vs.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n           1. Neptune Co-operative Housing\n                Society Ltd.\n                A cooperative society registered\n                under the provisions of the M.C.S.\n                Act, 1960, and having its registered\n                address at K3\/K4, D.N.Nagar,\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n                J.P.Road, Andheri (West),\n                Mumbai 400058.\n                                   \n           2. M\/s.Vaidehi Akash Housing Pvt.Ltd.\n                A company incorporated under the\n                provisions of the Indian Companies\n                Act, 1956, and having its registered\n                                  \n                address at Pratik, 1st floor,\n                Opp.Apna Bazar, J.P.Road,Andheri(West),\n                Mumbai 400058.                                                 ..Respondents\n                                                                 (Orig. Opponents)\n         \n\n                                               ALONG WITH\n                                 WRIT PETITION NO.3017 OF 2009\n      \n\n\n\n           Sulochana S. Gaikwad, Age 72,\n           Indian Inhabitant, of Mumbai,\n           residing at K, D.N.Nagar, J.P.Road,\n           Andheri (West), Mumbai 400058                                           Petitioner\n                                                                (Orig.Disputant)\n     \n\n\n\n\n                          Vs.\n\n           1. Neptune Co-operative Housing\n                Society Ltd.\n                A cooperative society registered\n\n\n\n\n\n                under the provisions of the M.C.S.\n                Act, 1960, and having its registered\n                address at K3\/K4, D.N.Nagar,\n                J.P.Road, Andheri (West),\n                Mumbai 400058.\n\n           2. M\/s.Vaidehi Akash Housing Pvt.Ltd.\n                A company incorporated under the\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:27:36 :::\n                                                  (2)\n\n\n\n\n          provisions of the Indian Companies\n          Act, 1956, and having its registered\n          address at Pratik, 1st floor,\n          Opp.Apna Bazar, J.P.Road,Andheri(West),\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                      \n          Mumbai 400058.                                                 ..Respondents\n                                                           (Orig. Opponents)\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n                                         ALONG WITH\n                           WRIT PETITION NO.3028 OF 2009\n\n     Padmaraj Kanmalji Israni,Age 38,\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n     Indian Inhabitant, of Mumbai,\n     residing at K, D.N.Nagar, J.P.Road,\n     Andheri (West), Mumbai 400058                                        Petitioner\n                                                       (Orig.Disputant)\n\n                    Vs.\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n     1. Neptune Co-operative Housing\n          Society Ltd.       \n          A cooperative society registered\n          under the provisions of the M.C.S.\n          Act, 1960, and having its registered\n          address at K3\/K4, D.N.Nagar,\n                            \n          J.P.Road, Andheri (West),\n          Mumbai 400058.\n\n     2. M\/s.Vaidehi Akash Housing Pvt.Ltd.\n          A company incorporated under the\n      \n\n          provisions of the Indian Companies\n          Act, 1956, and having its registered\n          address at Pratik, 1st floor,\n   \n\n\n\n          Opp.Apna Bazar, J.P.Road,Andheri(West),\n          Mumbai 400058.                                                 ..Respondents\n                                                           (Orig. Opponents)\n\n\n\n\n\n                                         ALONG WITH\n                           WRIT PETITION NO.3029 OF 2009\n\n     Nalini Dawade, AGE: 50,\n     Indian Inhabitant, of Mumbai,\n     residing at K, D.N.Nagar, J.P.Road,\n\n\n\n\n\n     Andheri (West), Mumbai 400058                                        Petitioner\n                                                       (Orig.Disputant)\n\n                    Vs.\n\n     1. Neptune Co-operative Housing\n          Society Ltd.\n          A cooperative society registered\n\n\n\n\n                                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:27:36 :::\n                                                   (3)\n\n\n\n\n          under the provisions of the M.C.S.\n          Act, 1960, and having its registered\n          address at K3\/K4, D.N.Nagar,\n          J.P.Road, Andheri (West),\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                         \n          Mumbai 400058.\n\n     2. M\/s.Vaidehi Akash Housing Pvt.Ltd.\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n          A company incorporated under the\n          provisions of the Indian Companies\n          Act, 1956, and having its registered\n          address at Pratik, 1st floor,\n          Opp.Apna Bazar, J.P.Road,Andheri(West),\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n          Mumbai 400058.                                                 ..Respondents\n                                                           (Orig. Opponents)\n\n\n                                         ALONG WITH\n                           WRIT PETITION NO.3031 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n     Maheshkumar Kanmallji Israni,Age 32,\n     Indian Inhabitant, of Mumbai,\n                             \n     residing at K, D.N.Nagar, J.P.Road,\n     Andheri (West), Mumbai 400058                                           Petitioner\n                                                          (Orig.Disputant)\n                            \n                    Vs.\n\n     1. Neptune Co-operative Housing\n          Society Ltd.\n          A cooperative society registered\n      \n\n          under the provisions of the M.C.S.\n          Act, 1960, and having its registered\n          address at K3\/K4, D.N.Nagar,\n   \n\n\n\n          J.P.Road, Andheri (West),\n          Mumbai 400058.\n\n     2. M\/s.Vaidehi Akash Housing Pvt.Ltd.\n          A company incorporated under the\n\n\n\n\n\n          provisions of the Indian Companies\n          Act, 1956, and having its registered\n          address at Pratik, 1st floor,\n          Opp.Apna Bazar, J.P.Road,Andheri(West),\n          Mumbai 400058.                                                 ..Respondents\n                                                           (Orig. Opponents)\n\n\n\n\n\n     Mrs.Varsha Palav with Mr.V.C.Singh for the\n     petitioners.\n\n     Mr.Vijay A. Thorat, Sr.Advocate with Mr.R.A.Thorat\n     for respondent no.1.\n\n\n\n\n                                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:27:36 :::\n                                                                  (4)\n\n\n\n\n     Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Lakshmi Murali\n     for respondent no.2.\n\n                                                    CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                                                  V.MOHTA,J<\/p>\n
                                                    DATED : 26th March, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGMENT:\n<\/p>\n
                    Heard                finally                  by               consent                of                  the         parties.\n<\/p>\n
     Since                the         issues             involved            in        all          these              petitions              are<\/p>\n
     common, the same are being disposed of by this common<\/p>\n
     judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     2.               The         ig      petitioners             being            aggrieved         by           the          Order           of<\/p>\n
     appointment                 of            Receiver               on           Applications                filed           by             the<\/p>\n
     respondents-society                  initially                    granted                      by                    a              common<\/p>\n
     order          dated                10.12.2008                        by            the                   Cooperative                 Court,<\/p>\n
     Mumbai                      in            Disputes                filed            by               the              respondents-societies<\/p>\n
     praying        for          damages,                  as          well            as,           an            interim              injunction<\/p>\n
     including an appointment of Receiver against the<\/p>\n
     petitioners\/opponents in the said Disputes.\n<\/p>\n
     3.               The                Maharashtra                               Cooperative                    Appellate                Court,<\/p>\n
     Mumbai                has         also          maintained              the        said         order             by           a    common<\/p>\n
     order dated 07.03.2009 and thereby dismissed the<\/p>\n
     Appeals filed by the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
     4.                   Admittedly,               as      the            requisite         members,              i.e.                     70%,<\/p>\n
     were          available                   at               the        relevant          time         and                  after          due<\/p>\n
                                                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:27:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                          (5)<\/span><\/p>\n
     amalgamation             of            two              societies            i.e.                      K-3          and            K-4            and        as<\/p>\n
     they                  decided                to           redevelop                     the            entire           property                 of        both<\/p>\n
     the               societies                       for          larger            benefits               to         members               and                 as<\/p>\n
     the              buildings                    were                     in           a          dilapidated                      condition                   and<\/p>\n
     required                    to              be                 demolished,                              based              upon                         various<\/p>\n
     Resolutions,                           resolved                  to                             demolish                   the                          existing<\/p>\n
     building           and              decided                to           construct                      the          new                buildings             by<\/p>\n
     carrying              out                development                        on                         the           said                plot,              the<\/p>\n
     Agreements                    for                  Developments                                    dated                   25.07.2005                       and<\/p>\n
     12.01.2006                  have                   been                     entered             into          between                    the                two<\/p>\n
     societies          and              as
\n                                        ig              respondent                    no.2              has             been                appointed             as<\/p>\n
     Developer                         to              develop               the                   entire            society’s                             properties<\/p>\n
     and         as        the           Agreement                   has              been             confirmed               under               the         Deed<\/p>\n
     of                Confirmation                            for           Development                      dated            03.03.2007                         by<\/p>\n
     respondent                    no.1-society                            and           as            respondent                           no.2                 has<\/p>\n
     been             proceeding                 with                the              redevelopment                       work,                  after           due<\/p>\n
     registration                           of                 respondent                                    no.1-society,                       as              the<\/p>\n
     development of the plot\/property in question is in<\/p>\n
     progress since then.\n<\/p>\n
     5.                The               concerned                     respondent,                                pursuance                  to                  the<\/p>\n
     Agreement                   has               spent             huge             amount            of           about                  more                than<\/p>\n
     Rs.3         crores              (Rupees                three           crores).                             Out          of           80             members,<\/p>\n
     54               members                     have                   already                       vacated                      their                  respective<\/p>\n
     premises.                         The                    concerned                        respondent               paid                 Rs.1                 lac<\/p>\n
     (Rupees               one                   lac)          to        each            member               and         has          been                   paying<\/p>\n
                                                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:27:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                              (6)<\/span><\/p>\n
     rent                 for              their             occupation               at          other              place             at        the                rate<\/p>\n
     of            Rs.8,000\/-                     per            month         apart              from              huge            money           on              the<\/p>\n
     construction                    of                development                    of                plot               in               question,             based<\/p>\n
     upon the approved Plan and I.O.D. as amended from<\/p>\n
     time to time.\n<\/p>\n
     6.                   The               petitioners                  dispute                 with           regard                 to          the          various<\/p>\n
     Resolutions                     about                    appointment                        of                 the                builder                including<\/p>\n
     their                 challenge                    to          the           basic               amalgamation                     as        well                as<\/p>\n
     the                  requisite                  70%            is        still              pending.                           Under          the          Scheme<\/p>\n
     of                     Development     ig                    Control                  Regulation                     for             Greater             Mumbai,<\/p>\n
     1991,                       the                             Cooperative                    Housing               Society\/Developer,                              if<\/p>\n
     have                       obtained                 No               Objection                    Certificate                  (NOC)              from         the<\/p>\n
     MHADA\/Mumbai                                       Board,                        thereby                             sanctioning                         additional<\/p>\n
     balance                FSI                 with         a          consent            of          70%           of          its        members                 and<\/p>\n
     where                  such                     NOC                 holder                    has               made                   provision                for<\/p>\n
     alternative                          accommodation                                in              the                       proposed                      building<\/p>\n
     (including                       transit                           accommodation)                       then           it                   shall               be<\/p>\n
     obligatory                           for                     all                            the                      occupiers\/members                           to<\/p>\n
     participate                in               the              Redevelopment                         Scheme                      and            vacate           the<\/p>\n
     3existing                            tenement                 for            the                 purpose                  of                   redevelopment.\n<\/p>\n
     It              is              also            provided              that             in          case              of           failure           to      vacate<\/p>\n
     the             existing                           tenement                            for                           the                 purpose                of<\/p>\n
     redevelopment,                             an                 appropriate                                  proceedings                         can              be<\/p>\n
     initiated for the purpose of getting tenements vacated<\/p>\n
     from the non-cooperative members.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:27:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                                (7)<\/span><\/p>\n
     7.                        Merely                         because                there           are          disputes             or                     challenges<\/p>\n
     pending                    as                  raised                by          the            petitioners              and           such                   other<\/p>\n
     members,                        that          itself                cannot              be            the           reason             to           stop        the<\/p>\n
     progress             of           the               development                       which                 is           at            advance               stage.\n<\/p>\n
     The                   requisite                               members\/percentage,                          available                         at                 the<\/p>\n
     relevant                   time              and              by           following              due              procedure                 of                law,<\/p>\n
     based          upon                   the            same,                 the               parties              proceeded                  further           and<\/p>\n
     now                  the               development                         is            at                advance                     stage,                   the<\/p>\n
     grievances,                even                    if                any                of        the                   persons                   like          the<\/p>\n
     petitioners,                       ig        unless                        adjudicated                       finally,                  the                 progress<\/p>\n
     just cannot be halted at the instance of such persons.\n<\/p>\n
     8.                   In               such                circumstances,                       there              are           always                   objections<\/p>\n
     and                  disputes                by               remaining                 30%             members                 or           less           against<\/p>\n
     such           Scheme                  which,                  in           my                view,               unless             decided                finally,<\/p>\n
     cannot                    be           the              reason             to           halt           the          advance                         development<\/p>\n
     of             the                    project,            as          it         involves              huge             money           which                   are<\/p>\n
     already               spent                   and                    as          majority             of          the             members                     have<\/p>\n
     already acted upon the said Agreements and are<\/p>\n
     enjoying the benefits out of the same.\n<\/p>\n
     9.              In              the          present                cases,as              noted               and             observed              by         both<\/p>\n
     the             Courts,                       this             Court             in          other           Writ                    Petitions                 had<\/p>\n
     occasion                                to                    consider                    the                    similar\/identical                       grievances<\/p>\n
     raised                against                           the          concerned                 respondents.                                  In               Writ<\/p>\n
                                                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:27:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                          (8)<\/span><\/p>\n
     Petition           No.5540\/2007                in       para        5,          this      Court                by            its<\/p>\n
     Order dated 27th September, 2007 has observed as<\/p>\n
     under:\n<\/p>\n
                   “5.                    ……..                Selection      of       developer             and
\n                   entering                   into      a         contract        with        the         developer
\n                   does        not      depend       upon       the       whims       of      one      or       two
\n                   members.                   The         respondent                No.2          has          been
\n                   appointed          as           a    developer           by       the        society,        and<\/p>\n
                   said         action          has     been          approved         by        the        General
\n                   Body.                       Thus           the      appointment        of             respondent
\n                   No.2                as          a   developer,          prima       facie       appears        to
\n                   be legal, and at any rate, cannot be flouted
\n                   at this stage.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Again              in     ig      Writ        Petition         No.3783\/2008,                 this         Court             by<\/p>\n
      its order dated 6.08.2008 has observed in para 11,<\/p>\n
      the relevant portion of which is as under:\n<\/p>\n
                   “11.                        ……..Petitioner                cannot           make                   any
\n                   grievance                   regarding            validity         of          the                   order
\n                   amalgamating                      the          two         societies          as         well           as,<\/p>\n
                   development                    agreement            entered          into         by                  K-3
\n                   and              K-4                 societies       and        subsequent           deed                of
\n                   confirmation                 executed                   by                the                 respondent<\/p>\n
                   no.1            society,               especially            when,               the             majority
\n                   members               have                 consented                      for               development
\n                   agreement.                  At          this        stage,        it        is         also         worth
\n                   to         mention             that            way       back     in           2006             MHADA
\n                   declared              both           the        buildings       i.e.               K-3                and<\/p>\n
                   K-4,             as              unfit       for       the      habitation.               It             is
\n                   also             not       disputed          by       ld.             counsel         for              the
\n                   petitioner                that                  K-4         building         has                  already
\n                   been             demolished.                  In       the      set       of       facts              and
\n                   circumstances            of            both           cases,           in          my            opinion,
\n                   the redevelopment work cannot be stalled at<\/p>\n
                   the instance of the petitioner.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     10.                 Now,        merely         because         in         the          Disputes        filed        by      the<\/p>\n
     respondent-society,                    claimed                 damages                          against                     the<\/p>\n
     petitioners               for                creating          obstruction               in          the                 Project<\/p>\n
                                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:27:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                                 (9)<\/span><\/p>\n
     and                 as              prayer                   are               made              for              injunction\/appointment                                of<\/p>\n
     Receiver,                the                       learned                Courts                below,             in             view                   of            the<\/p>\n
     background                referred                           above,                       granted                            an                Order                    of<\/p>\n
     appointment                        of             Receiver                 which,                in             my           view,                cannot                be<\/p>\n
     said          to               be                   perverse                   or         without            any           basis.                            On        the<\/p>\n
     contrary,              considering                             the                    Scheme                                 and                   purpose              as<\/p>\n
     referred               above,                           it          is          well             within              the             frame             work             of<\/p>\n
     law                and              the            record.                            The                 submission                 that              such        Dispute<\/p>\n
     itself                   is               not                 maintainable                       for               damages                     including              such<\/p>\n
     application                    for                       Receiver                    as          granted                in                     the                 present<\/p>\n
     facts               and              ig circumstances                          of          the              case             is             not          correct        or<\/p>\n
     at             least               that            cannot                 be              the             reason             to             interfere                 with<\/p>\n
     the orders passed by the Courts below at this stage of<\/p>\n
     the matter.\n<\/p>\n
     11.                      Sofar               as              the           subsequent                     amendment                    to         the               I.O.C.\n<\/p>\n
     or         entitlement                  of              their              area                 as           per                their             Agreement             or<\/p>\n
     otherwise                 is              always               a           matter                which               can             be           decided               or<\/p>\n
     adjudicated                               by                  the                   society\/developer                           by                resolving            the<\/p>\n
     problems,                     if             any.                         All              the             valid             members                    are        entitled<\/p>\n
     to            get                    resolved                 such                  Disputes               even            of           area            or            their<\/p>\n
     entitlement               as                      per                    the         Scheme                or        as           per                  the           Rule.\n<\/p>\n
     But,           if                   such                      members                  instead              of          submitting                           to        the<\/p>\n
     Scheme                   want                to          create                hurdle                or          want             to           obstruct                the<\/p>\n
     proceedings\/redevelopment                                                  of                   the                  Project                      in              question,<\/p>\n
     at their instance on that ground also such Projects<\/p>\n
                                                                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:27:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                               ( 10 )<\/p>\n
     just cannot be halted.\n<\/p>\n
     12.                     The                   legitimate                     members,                the           builders                    and             the<\/p>\n
     societies                     as              recorded                above               can               resolve             the                       internal<\/p>\n
     dispute                  with                           regard             to         the                         properties                          construction<\/p>\n
     area,        if         any              or             such              other           issues             on           that                ground         also,<\/p>\n
     I am not inclined to interfere with the order as<\/p>\n
     passed by the Courts below.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          \n     13.                       I             am          not             considering                 at          this         stage                basically        the\n\n     maintainability                    of\n                                         ig                   the                 Suit          or          the          main                      relief           as\n\n     claimed                  in                        the                                pending                         Suits\/the                         Disputes.\n\n     Considering                        the                    facts             and              circumstances,                              the                order\n                                       \n     appointing              the              Receiver                   to             take              possession                     is           only          for\n\n     temporary                          displacement,                      there               is           no             dispute                  about           the\n      \n\n     ownership                     of             the          property                and            the          object                and                   purpose\n\n     of        requirement                   of          vacant                 possession                  of           land.                        Even          the\n   \n\n\n\n     temporary                accommodation                                would                     be                 provided                      to            the\n\n     Petitioners.                       It               needs                   to       be          provided                      as               per            the\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     Scheme itself. Such members will be put back in<\/p>\n
     possession in the new building as per the Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
     14.                       Admittedly,                               the           petitioners               are          not             at               present<\/p>\n
     ready              to                   vacate                   the            premises                     which                       is             definitely<\/p>\n
     affecting                 the                further            development                     of          the          Scheme.                               In<\/p>\n
     this              background                        I          am          also         of           the          view          that           there            is<\/p>\n
                                                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:27:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                       ( 11 )<\/p>\n
     sufficient                      case           made              out              by           the             concerned                     respondents<\/p>\n
     for         appointment                of        Receiver               and             Order            as           passed                   in        the<\/p>\n
     present                cases.                     All            the            basic          elements               as            required              to<\/p>\n
     pass             such             order         is         clearly              borne          out         from              the                     record<\/p>\n
     itself.                        The          peculiarity           of            the         Scheme              read          with                       the<\/p>\n
     circumstances including the requirement of the vacant<\/p>\n
     land further supports the grant of such order.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n     15.               The                  petitioners                are           not        willing               to                give                 any\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n     security                  to                  support             any             interim              order          or                        injunction\n\n     order,               if           passed\n                                       ig                 by          this           Court             stopping             the                          progress\n\n     of               the                 Project,              as,                        admittedly,                the                           concerned\n\n     respondents                      have           already              spent              more            than           Rs.3                           crores\n                                     \n     (Rupees                three                  crores)          for          the            Project        and                  they                      are\n\n     regularly              paying                   the               considerable                             amount                       to               all\n      \n\n     members who have already                      shifted for their\n\n     occupation\/rent charges.\n   \n\n\n\n     16.                  Taking             all       this         into          account,             in       my          view,              it              is\n\n\n\n\n\n     in             the             interest         of         all            the           parties          that          such                          Project\n\n     should               be           completed               as         early            as        possible              so           that                  all\n\n     the             members                 who           have             already             shifted         pursuant                to                    the\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     Scheme will be in a position to use and utilise<\/p>\n
     redeveloped property.\n<\/p>\n
     17. Resultantly, all these writ petitions are<\/p>\n
                                                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:27:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                               ( 12 )<\/p>\n
     dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
     18.              The           learned          counsel            for           the           petitioners         seek      stay<\/p>\n
     of             this         order         for      four           weeks             from         today.              Considering<\/p>\n
     the reasoning given above, I am not inclined to grant<\/p>\n
     any further protection in this regard.\n<\/p>\n
     19.              However,                 a        statement         is         made             by          the          learned<\/p>\n
     counsel               for            respondents           1       and          2       that       they      shall           not<\/p>\n
     take           any            action            pursuance                 to            the            impugned            order<\/p>\n
     without          giving       ig     at          least             two          weeks              notice           to        the<\/p>\n
     petitioners.                 This,              according                 to                    me,          suffice           to<\/p>\n
     protect the present position of the petitioners, if<\/p>\n
     any.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:27:36 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Mahabir Nuniwal vs Neptune Co-Operative Housing on 26 March, 2009 Bench: Anoop V.Mohta dgm gm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3030 OF 2009 Mahabir Nuniwal, Age 54, Indian Inhabitant, of Mumbai, residing at K, D.N.Nagar, J.P.Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400058 Petitioner (Orig.Disputant) Vs. […]<\/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-206989","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMahabir Nuniwal vs Neptune Co-Operative Housing on 26 March, 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\/mahabir-nuniwal-vs-neptune-co-operative-housing-on-26-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mahabir Nuniwal vs Neptune Co-Operative Housing on 26 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahabir-nuniwal-vs-neptune-co-operative-housing-on-26-march-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=\"2009-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-21T04:54:38+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahabir-nuniwal-vs-neptune-co-operative-housing-on-26-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahabir-nuniwal-vs-neptune-co-operative-housing-on-26-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mahabir Nuniwal vs Neptune Co-Operative Housing on 26 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-21T04:54:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahabir-nuniwal-vs-neptune-co-operative-housing-on-26-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1508,\"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\\\/mahabir-nuniwal-vs-neptune-co-operative-housing-on-26-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahabir-nuniwal-vs-neptune-co-operative-housing-on-26-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahabir-nuniwal-vs-neptune-co-operative-housing-on-26-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Mahabir Nuniwal vs Neptune Co-Operative Housing on 26 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-21T04:54:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahabir-nuniwal-vs-neptune-co-operative-housing-on-26-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahabir-nuniwal-vs-neptune-co-operative-housing-on-26-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahabir-nuniwal-vs-neptune-co-operative-housing-on-26-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mahabir Nuniwal vs Neptune Co-Operative Housing on 26 March, 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":"Mahabir Nuniwal vs Neptune Co-Operative Housing on 26 March, 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\/mahabir-nuniwal-vs-neptune-co-operative-housing-on-26-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mahabir Nuniwal vs Neptune Co-Operative Housing on 26 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahabir-nuniwal-vs-neptune-co-operative-housing-on-26-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-21T04:54:38+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahabir-nuniwal-vs-neptune-co-operative-housing-on-26-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahabir-nuniwal-vs-neptune-co-operative-housing-on-26-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mahabir Nuniwal vs Neptune Co-Operative Housing on 26 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-21T04:54:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahabir-nuniwal-vs-neptune-co-operative-housing-on-26-march-2009"},"wordCount":1508,"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\/mahabir-nuniwal-vs-neptune-co-operative-housing-on-26-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahabir-nuniwal-vs-neptune-co-operative-housing-on-26-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahabir-nuniwal-vs-neptune-co-operative-housing-on-26-march-2009","name":"Mahabir Nuniwal vs Neptune Co-Operative Housing on 26 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-21T04:54:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahabir-nuniwal-vs-neptune-co-operative-housing-on-26-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahabir-nuniwal-vs-neptune-co-operative-housing-on-26-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahabir-nuniwal-vs-neptune-co-operative-housing-on-26-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mahabir Nuniwal vs Neptune Co-Operative Housing on 26 March, 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\/206989","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=206989"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/206989\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=206989"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=206989"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=206989"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}