Court rules in favor of plaintiffs, allowing injunctive relief against non-bona fide purchaser
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has granted injunctive relief to the plaintiffs, Rahul Ganesh Mehta and others, in a dispute involving a development agreement for a plot of land in Panvel, Raigad. The court's decision comes after an appeal was filed against an earlier order by the 2nd Assistant Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel, which had rejected the plaintiffs' application for a temporary injunction.
The case centers around a development agreement executed on July 31, 2017, between the plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1, Narayan Ganpat Gaikwad, for the development of a plot measuring 940 square meters. The agreement stipulated that the plaintiffs would develop the entire suit plot, with 50% of the constructed area and a monetary consideration of Rs. 1.88 crores to be handed over to Defendant No. 1.
The plaintiffs argued that they had complied with their obligations under the agreement, paying a substantial amount towards the consideration. However, they claimed that Defendant No. 1, along with Defendant No. 2, failed to inform them about the possession of the plot and attempted to transfer rights to Defendant No. 3, who was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.
The trial court had previously dismissed the plaintiffs' application for an injunction, citing inactivity on their part and the absence of planning permissions. However, the High Court found that time was not of the essence as per the agreement's terms, which accounted for the undeveloped nature of the area.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, presiding over the case, emphasized that the plaintiffs had made a prima facie case for injunctive relief. The court noted that the plaintiffs had acquired an interest in the property, and the balance of convenience favored them, given the likelihood of irreparable loss and the absence of bona fide purchaser status for Defendant No. 3.
The court quashed the previous order and allowed the application for injunctive relief, thereby preventing any further alienation of the suit property by the defendants.
Bottom Line :
Specific Performance - Development agreement executed between the plaintiffs and the defendant - Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of injunctive reliefs, as they have complied with their obligations under the agreement and acquired an interest in the property. Defendant No. 3 is not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.
Statutory provision(s): Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 14(3)(c), Section 19(b).
Rahul Ganesh Mehta v. Narayan Ganpat Gaikwad, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc id # 2956396
