Pankaj C. Shah And Others vs Parle Palace Co-Operative ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7953 Bom

                                                                                      22-wp-382-2021




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                CONTEMPT PETITION NO.382 OF 2021

                             Pankaj C. Shah & Ors.                        ...Petitioners
                                         Vs.
                             Parle Palace Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.           ...Respondent
          Digitally signed
          by NILAM
                                                           ----
NILAM
SANTOSH
          SANTOSH
          KAMBLE             Mr.K.H. Holambe Patil a/w K.K. Holambe Patil for the
          Date:
KAMBLE    2022.08.18
          11:18:59 +0530     Petitioner.
                             Mr.Rajesh Sharma a/w Mr.Mahaveer Lohar i/b Mr.Rajesh S.
                             Sharma and Associate for Respondent No.5 and 5(a) to 5(c).
                             Ms.Surbhi Shinde i/b Mr.Sachin Mhatre for Respondent Nos.4(a)
                             to 4(d).
                                                           ----
                                                          CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.

                                                                   DATE      : 17 AUGUST 2022

                             P.C.

                             .                   Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The issue is about alleged non-payment of rent to the Petitioners, who are stated to be the minority members of the first Respondent-Society. The learned counsel for the Petitioners states that the Petitioners who are five in number, have not been paid rent and the Respondent-Builder and Developer has refused to enter into, Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement, although the Petitioners have already vacated the premises.

                                  N.S. Kamble                                                     page 1 of 3
                                                      22-wp-382-2021

3. The learned counsel for the Respondent-Developer and Builder states that rent for seven months along with some other amounts payable, have been withheld, as per the Resolution passed by the Society, inasmuch as there was an intervening structure from the adjoining land which was to be removed.

4. It is submitted that there is no specific statement which is made by the Respondent or recorded by this Court in the judgment and order dated 26 September 2016 in Appeal From Order (Stamp) No.1565 of 2016. Thus according to the learned counsel the Contempt Petition is not maintainable.

5. The learned counsel for the Respondent-Developer and Builder on instructions states that the Respondent is ready and willing to pay rent as paid to the other members of the society and to enter into Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement. In short it was submitted that the Respondent is ready and willing to treat the Petitioners on par with the other members of the Society.

6. The learned counsel for the Petitioners therefore seeks time to take instructions and then to make appropriate statement to further assist the Court.

     N.S. Kamble                                                 page 2 of 3
                                                         22-wp-382-2021

7. In view of the submissions made at the bar, I find that it would be appropriate if the parties sit together and make an attempt to amicably settle the dispute as a specific statement is made on behalf of the Respondent-Developer and Builder that he is ready and willing to treat the Petitioners on par with the other members of the Society. In order to enable the parties to explore such settlement, stand over to 7 September 2022, 'for direction'.

C.V. BHADANG, J.

     N.S. Kamble                                                    page 3 of 3