{"id":70670,"date":"2008-10-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mont-blanc-properties-and-vs-mont-blanc-co-operative-housing-on-23-october-2008"},"modified":"2015-10-11T16:50:17","modified_gmt":"2015-10-11T11:20:17","slug":"mont-blanc-properties-and-vs-mont-blanc-co-operative-housing-on-23-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mont-blanc-properties-and-vs-mont-blanc-co-operative-housing-on-23-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Mont Blanc Properties And … vs Mont Blanc Co-Operative Housing on 23 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Mont Blanc Properties And … vs Mont Blanc Co-Operative Housing on 23 October, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: S.A. Bobde<\/div>\n
                       -:   1   :-\n\n\n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n           ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n               APPEAL NO.392 OF 2008\n                      In\n           NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2905 OF 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     \n                      In\n              SUIT NO.2746 OF 1992\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n    Mont Blanc Properties and Industries\n    Ltd., a company incorporated under\n    the Indian Companies Act, 1956,\n    having its registered office at\n    Dady Seth Hill, August Kranti Marg,\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n    Bombay--400 026.                               : Appellants\n                                                  (Orig.Defendants)\n         V\/s.\n\n    1. Mont Blanc Co-operative Housing\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n       Society Ltd., having its registered\n       office at Mont Blanc, Dady Seth Hill,\n       August Kranti Marg, Bombay 26.\n                     \n    2. Srichand Girdharidas Narang,\n       of Bombay, Indian inhabitants,\n       residing at Flat No.12, Mont Blanc,\n                    \n       Dady Seth Hill, August Kranti Marg,\n       Bombay-26.                               : Respondents\n                                              (Orig.Plaintiffs)\n                        ...\n    Mr.Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Chetan\n    Kapadia and Mr.Sanjay Kotak i\/b. M\/s.P.K.Shroff & Co., for\n      \n\n\n    the appellants.\n   \n\n\n\n    Mr.Cyrus Ardeshir i\/b. M\/s.Hariani & Co., for the\n    respondents.\n                       ...\n                           CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.&\n                                   S.A. BOBDE, J.\n\n\n\n\n\n                            Date of Reserving        ): 30.09.2008\n                            the Judgement.           )\n\n                            Date of Pronouncing ): 23.10.2008\n                            the Judgement.      )\n\n\n\n\n\n    JUDGEMENT (Per S.A.Bobde,J.)\n<\/pre>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:01:05 :::<\/span>
\n                          -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
    1.    This is an appeal against the rejection of a Notice of<\/p>\n
    Motion    which      has   resulted in the suit          being        proceeded<\/p>\n
    without       Written      Statement      against       the       appellants-\n<\/p>\n
    defendants.\n<\/p>\n
    2.    The appellants took out a Notice of Motion to have the<\/p>\n
    order    dated      17.6.2008 set aside and taking               the     Written<\/p>\n
    Statement      on    record.    On 26.6.1998 the Court              passed        an<\/p>\n
    order    directing      that    if the Written        Statement          is     not<\/p>\n
    filed,    the    suit should appear for ex parte                 decree.          On<\/p>\n
    17.6.2008,      the    learned    Judge    noted      that       the     Written<\/p>\n
    Statement      was not filed and, hence, ordered that the suit<\/p>\n
    should<\/p>\n
    learned
\n              be    proceeded
\n                             ig    without     Written       Statement.\n<\/p>\n
               Judge trying the suit has declined to condone the
\n                                                                                    The<\/p>\n
    delay    of 3683 days in filing the Written Statement.                          The<\/p>\n
    learned Judge has observed that on 11.12.1997 the suit was<\/p>\n
    transferred to the list of undefended suits and no efforts<\/p>\n
    have    been    made by the defendants to have this order                       set<\/p>\n
    aside    and    even though an order was made              directing           that<\/p>\n
    Written    Statement       may be accepted within two weeks                    from<\/p>\n
    the    date    when the matter was on board on 26.6.1998,                       the<\/p>\n
    defendants      did    not avail of the time and failed to                     file<\/p>\n
    the    Written Statement.        When the matter came up again                    on<\/p>\n
    board    on    17.6.2008, the Court passed an order                   that      the<\/p>\n
    suit    should      proceed without a Written Statement                  in     the<\/p>\n
    presence      of the Advocate.      That order was interpreted                    by<\/p>\n
    the defendants as an order granting time to the defendants<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:01:05 :::<\/span>
\n                            -: 3 :-<\/span>
\n    to    file    Written Statement.        Accordingly, the               defendants<\/p>\n
    declared       the       Written    Statement      on         1.7.2008            and,<\/p>\n
    thereafter,        filed the Written Statement.               Apart from           the<\/p>\n
    alleged      misinterpretation        of   the    order         of     17.6.2008,<\/p>\n
    according to the defendants, they did not file the Written<\/p>\n
    Statement      for      all this time because there               were      various<\/p>\n
    litigations        between    the parties and they were trying                       to<\/p>\n
    settle      the    matter.     The     talks     of      settlement           failed<\/p>\n
    sometime      in    2003.    The learned trial Judge has                   rejected<\/p>\n
    the permission to file the Written Statement on the ground<\/p>\n
    that    the defendants failed to file the Written                        Statement<\/p>\n
    prior    to December 1997;          that they did not challenge                    the<\/p>\n
    order dated 11.12.1997, did not file the Written Statement<\/p>\n
    as per the order dated 26.6.1998 after talks of settlement<\/p>\n
    failed.       It    cannot be said that the learned trial                       Judge<\/p>\n
    has    not    taken correctly appreciating the failure of                          the<\/p>\n
    defendants to file Written Statement.                  However, it appears<\/p>\n
    that    though      the defendants had an opportunity of                      filing<\/p>\n
    the    Written Statement within two weeks of 26.6.1998,                            the<\/p>\n
    matter,      in    fact, did not come up for hearing for a                        long<\/p>\n
    time    i.e.      till 17.6.2008.      It was not as if the                 failure<\/p>\n
    of    the    defendants      to    file the    Written          Statement          has<\/p>\n
    obstructed the Court from proceeding to decide the suit by<\/p>\n
    passing      an    ex    parte decree sometime in             the      year       1998<\/p>\n
    itself or even soon thereafter.             While it is true that the<\/p>\n
    defendants        ought to have taken adequate steps to file the<\/p>\n
    Written Statement within the time stipulated by the Court,<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:01:05 :::<\/span>
\n                         -: 4 :-<\/span>
\n    it   is difficult to ignore the reality that the matter did<\/p>\n
    not come up on board for a long time thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
    3.   In    Saga   Department Stores Limited     v.       Falak        Home<\/p>\n
    Developers Pvt.    Ltd.<\/a>   (2008 Vol.   110 (7) Bom.L.R.             2370)<\/p>\n
    this Court has held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
              “6.   The expression “Justice of the case
\n              may require” is equivalent to “in the<\/p>\n
              interest of justice” or “ends of Justice”.
\n              Thus, the paramount consideration under the
\n              scheme of the rules is to achieve justice
\n              rather than frustrate rights of the parties
\n              on technical ground, particularly when the<\/p>\n
              rights of the other party can be protected
\n              by such terms as may appear in the opinion
\n              of the Court to be just and proper.     The<\/p>\n
              High Court, Original Side Rules, which will
\n              prevail   and take    precedence over the
\n              provisions of the Civil Procedure Code,
\n              also indicate that the provisions under the<\/p>\n
              Rules   are not as     stringent   as   the
\n              provisions of the Code in regard to the
\n              defaults.   The scheme of the High Court,
\n              Original Side Rules is that where the
\n              written   statement   is    not  filed   as
\n              contemplated under Rule 74, the course is<\/p>\n
              not provided that a decree will follow as a
\n              natural consequence or automatically. The<\/p>\n
              Court   is still to      fix the suit    as
\n              undefended and then pass such Orders as it
\n              may deem fit and proper in the facts of the
\n              case including requiring the Plaintiff to
\n              prove his claim.     This    may result in<\/p>\n
              passing of a Judgement and a decree but
\n              even before that stage, the Defendant has
\n              been given liberty to take out a notice of
\n              motion for permission to file       written
\n              statement and taking such other pleas in
\n              the suit which can be allowed by the Court<\/p>\n
              subject to such terms and conditions as may
\n              be deemed fit and proper in terms of Rule
\n              91 of the said Rules. Interestingly, the
\n              provisions of Rule 265 are in addition to
\n              and not in derogation to the relevant
\n              provisions contained in Rules 88 to 91.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:01:05 :::<\/span>
\n                            -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
                Rule 226, in fact, completely dilutes the
\n                impact of specified period provided under
\n                the rules where the parties by consent in
\n                writing can enlarge the time for amending
\n                or filing pleadings or       of filing any
\n                delivery of documents. This could be done
\n                without application to the Court or even
\n                the Judge in chambers. It is apparent that<\/p>\n
                the period indicated in these rules is
\n                directory   and not     mandatory.  It   is
\n                directory even to the extent of providing<\/p>\n
                different options to the Court and the
\n                parties can even get liberty to enlarge the
\n                time fixed by consent.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Thereafter,         this   Court,    inter    alia,     concluded            as<\/p>\n
    follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                (1) The paramount consideration under the
\n                scheme of the rules is to achieve justice
\n                rather than frustrate rights of the parties<\/p>\n
                on technical ground, particularly when the
\n                rights of the other party can be protected
\n                by such terms as may appear in the opinion
\n                of the court to be just and proper.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (2) The extension of time is a matter in
\n                the discretion of the Court and could be
\n                granted for justifiable reasons recorded in
\n                writing.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    4.     Having regard to the observations made by this Court<\/p>\n
    and    in    the circumstances of the present case,                we     find<\/p>\n
    that    denying      the   defendants    an   opportunity          to     file<\/p>\n
    Written      Statement     would    frustrate the     rights         of     the<\/p>\n
    parties,      rather    than   achieve    justice.        As     indicated<\/p>\n
    earlier,       the    circumstances     would    have       been        quite<\/p>\n
    different      if    the   Court intended to pass         a    decree        in<\/p>\n
    favour       of   the   plaintiffs      after   calling        upon         the<\/p>\n
    plaintiffs to prove their claim.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:01:05 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                              -:    6   :-\n<\/p>\n
    5.    In this case, even though the matter was on board for<\/p>\n
    filing    Written Statement as early as 26.6.1998 when                         the<\/p>\n
    Court    granted    two weeks’ time for the purpose and                      even<\/p>\n
    though    the Court passed an order directing that the suit<\/p>\n
    should    proceed ex parte, no such proceedings took place.\n<\/p>\n
    It    appears    that,    in fact, no order for            proceeding           ex<\/p>\n
    parte    under    rule 89 of the Bombay High Court                  (Original<\/p>\n
    Side)    Rules, hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”, was<\/p>\n
    made    till    17.6.2008.      It is also relevant to note                  that<\/p>\n
    the plaintiffs did not take out any application for issue<\/p>\n
    of a Notice of Motion for a judgement for want of Written<\/p>\n
    Statement at any time after 26.6.1998 as provided by rule<\/p>\n
    90 of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
    6.     In the circumstances of the case, we are of opinion,<\/p>\n
    that denying an opportunity to the defendants to file the<\/p>\n
    Written Statement would frustrate their rights.                       However,<\/p>\n
    we    cannot be oblivious of their negligence in not filing<\/p>\n
    the    Written Statement within the time stipulated by                         law<\/p>\n
    and    by the Court.      In the circumstances of the case,                     we<\/p>\n
    consider    it    appropriate to permit them to file                    Written<\/p>\n
    Statement,      however,      on payment of costs in the                sum     of<\/p>\n
    Rs.50,000\/-       (Rupees      Fifty    Thousand        only)         to       the<\/p>\n
    plaintiffs.      Order accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
    7.    The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:01:05 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
            -:   7   :-\n<\/p>\n
                         CHIEF JUSTICE<\/p>\n
                         S.A. BOBDE, J.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:01:05 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Mont Blanc Properties And … vs Mont Blanc Co-Operative Housing on 23 October, 2008 Bench: S.A. Bobde -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.392 OF 2008 In NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2905 OF 2008 In SUIT NO.2746 OF 1992 Mont Blanc Properties and […]<\/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-70670","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMont Blanc Properties And ... vs Mont Blanc Co-Operative Housing on 23 October, 2008 - 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\/mont-blanc-properties-and-vs-mont-blanc-co-operative-housing-on-23-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mont Blanc Properties And ... vs Mont Blanc Co-Operative Housing on 23 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mont-blanc-properties-and-vs-mont-blanc-co-operative-housing-on-23-october-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-10-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-11T11:20:17+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mont-blanc-properties-and-vs-mont-blanc-co-operative-housing-on-23-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mont-blanc-properties-and-vs-mont-blanc-co-operative-housing-on-23-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mont Blanc Properties And … vs Mont Blanc Co-Operative Housing on 23 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-11T11:20:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mont-blanc-properties-and-vs-mont-blanc-co-operative-housing-on-23-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1332,\"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\/mont-blanc-properties-and-vs-mont-blanc-co-operative-housing-on-23-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mont-blanc-properties-and-vs-mont-blanc-co-operative-housing-on-23-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mont-blanc-properties-and-vs-mont-blanc-co-operative-housing-on-23-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Mont Blanc Properties And ... vs Mont Blanc Co-Operative Housing on 23 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-11T11:20:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mont-blanc-properties-and-vs-mont-blanc-co-operative-housing-on-23-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mont-blanc-properties-and-vs-mont-blanc-co-operative-housing-on-23-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mont-blanc-properties-and-vs-mont-blanc-co-operative-housing-on-23-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mont Blanc Properties And … vs Mont Blanc Co-Operative Housing on 23 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Mont Blanc Properties And ... vs Mont Blanc Co-Operative Housing on 23 October, 2008 - 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\/mont-blanc-properties-and-vs-mont-blanc-co-operative-housing-on-23-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mont Blanc Properties And ... vs Mont Blanc Co-Operative Housing on 23 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mont-blanc-properties-and-vs-mont-blanc-co-operative-housing-on-23-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-11T11:20:17+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mont-blanc-properties-and-vs-mont-blanc-co-operative-housing-on-23-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mont-blanc-properties-and-vs-mont-blanc-co-operative-housing-on-23-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mont Blanc Properties And … vs Mont Blanc Co-Operative Housing on 23 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-11T11:20:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mont-blanc-properties-and-vs-mont-blanc-co-operative-housing-on-23-october-2008"},"wordCount":1332,"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\/mont-blanc-properties-and-vs-mont-blanc-co-operative-housing-on-23-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mont-blanc-properties-and-vs-mont-blanc-co-operative-housing-on-23-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mont-blanc-properties-and-vs-mont-blanc-co-operative-housing-on-23-october-2008","name":"Mont Blanc Properties And ... vs Mont Blanc Co-Operative Housing on 23 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-11T11:20:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mont-blanc-properties-and-vs-mont-blanc-co-operative-housing-on-23-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mont-blanc-properties-and-vs-mont-blanc-co-operative-housing-on-23-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mont-blanc-properties-and-vs-mont-blanc-co-operative-housing-on-23-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mont Blanc Properties And … vs Mont Blanc Co-Operative Housing on 23 October, 2008"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/70670","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=70670"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70670\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70670"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70670"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70670"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}