Shri. Mavji Kanji And Ors vs Sardar Nagar Anand Chsl And Anr
2024 Latest Caselaw 2288 Bom

Bombay High Court

Shri. Mavji Kanji And Ors vs Sardar Nagar Anand Chsl And Anr on 24 January, 2024

Author: Gauri Godse

Bench: Gauri Godse

2024:BHC-AS:6708


                                                                    5-6-WP-10789.17.docx

 Gayatri                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                          WRIT PETITION NO. 10789 OF 2017
                                                       WITH
                                          WRIT PETITION NO. 11767 OF 2017
               Mavji Kanji and others                                              ... Petitioners
                         Vs.
               Sardar Nagar Anand CHSL and another                                 ...Respondents


               Ms. Sonal Hemant Misha a/w Mr. Kunal Bhange, Advocate for
               Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5.
               Mr. S. B. Pawar a/w Mr. Lubna Shaikh i/b Mr. S. K. Legal Associates
               LLP for Respondent No. 2.
               Mr. Nirav Doshi i/b Mr. Amit Karle, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.
                                                   CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

                                                   DATE :     24th JANUARY 2024



               P.C.
               Writ Petition No. 11767 of 2017

1. This petition challenges the order passed by the State Co-

operative Appellate Court allowing the appeal preferred by the

respondent no. 2. The appeal was preferred for challenging the

5-6-WP-10789.17.docx

Judgment and Award passed by the Co-operative Court on 30 th

November 2015 allowing the dispute filed by the petitioner. By the

said order, opponent nos. 1 to 5 in the dispute were directed to

handover the possession of the disputed office premises to the

petitioners. However, the said order has been set aside in appeal filed

by respondent no. 2 herein.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners

are claiming right on the basis of an Agreement dated 9 th January

1986. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 states that the said

agreement is cancelled long back and the petitioners have also

received refund.

3. So far as the right of the petitioners is concerned, there is no

dispute that except the said agreement of the year 1986, the

petitioners' claim is not based on any other transaction and/or any right

to claim the disputed office premises.

4. Though the petitioners do not admit to have received refund, it is

not disputed that the agreement dated 9 th January 1986 is cancelled.

5-6-WP-10789.17.docx

5. On perusal of the impugned order passed in the appeal, I do not

find any perversity, illegality or infirmity in the order to invoke the

powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere in the

impugned order.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts, I do not see any reason to interfere

in the order as the petitioners are unable to point out their right to claim

possession of the disputed office premises. The petition is devoid of

any merits.

7. For the reasons stated above, writ petition is dismissed.

Writ Petition No. 10789 of 2017

8. This petition arises out of the appeal preferred by the

respondent-society for challenging the same Judgment and Award

which is the subject matter of Writ Petition no. 11767 of 2017.

9. For the reasons recorded in the order passed in Writ Petition No.

11767 of 2017, this petition is also dismissed.

[GAURI GODSE, J.] GAYATRI by GAYATRI RAJENDRA RAJENDRA SHIMPI SHIMPI Date: 2024.02.12 13:51:24 +0530