Bombay High Court
Cisb Shrinathji Construction Private ... vs Beta Builders And Constructions ... on 25 August, 2025
1/5 17 ial-22431-25.odt
MANDIRA MILIND
SALGAONKAR
Digitally signed by MANDIRA
MILIND SALGAONKAR
Date: 2025.08.25 19:15:08 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.22431 OF 2025
IN
SUIT (L) NO.20954 OF 2025
CISB Shrinathji Constructions .. Plaintiff
Private Limited
Versus
Beta Builders and Constructions .. Defendants
through its Sole Proprietor Sanjeev
Singh Chadha & Ors.
...
Mr.Shiraz Rustomjee, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Chirag Mody,
Mr.Dharam Jumani, Mr.Munaf Virjee, Mr.Prateek Pail,
Mr.Mihir Nerurkar and Ms.Tirtha Mukherjee i/b AMR Law for
the Plaintiff.
Mr.Mayur Khandeparkar i/b Mr.Arun Panicker for the
Defendant No.1.
Mr.Pravin Samdani, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Nishant Chothani,
Mr.Yash Chheda, Mr.Nikesh Joshi and Mr. Bhavya R. Shah i/b
Maniar Srivastava Associates for the Defendant No.2.
Mr.Rizwan Merchant with Mr.Rishi Bindra and Mr.Suraj
Pardeshi i/b Ramiz Shaikh for the Respondent Nos.3 to 8.
CORAM: PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR
DATE : 25th AUGUST, 2025
...
P.C:-
1. Heard learned counsel for the Plaintiff as well as the
Defendants on the application seeking ad-interim injunction as
M.M.Salgaonkar
2/5 17 ial-22431-25.odt
prayed for by the application dated 16/07/2025 to restrain the
Defendant No.2 from acting in pursuance of the Deed of
Conveyance dated 28/04/2025. Although the Defendants are
served, they have not filed any affidavit-in-reply in response to
the Application, seeking ad-interim injunction.
2. The basic contention of the Plaintiff is, the Deed of
Conveyance executed on 16/04/2025 by the Defendant No.1
and registered on 12/06/2025 prevails over the Deed of
Conveyance executed on 28/04/2025 and registered on
30/04/2025 in favour of Defendant No.2. In support of this
contention, learned counsel for the Plaintiff invited my
attention to the registered document of Conveyance Deed. This
document mentions the details about the manner of payment
made by the Plaintiff to the Defendant No.1 stating thereby
that out of the total consideration of Rs.11,75,00,000/-, an
amount of Rs.8,00,00,000/- was paid by the Plaintiff and
pursuant thereto the document is executed. It is submitted
that based on this document, the Plaintiff has got rights with
respect to the suit property and during the pendency of the
suit, the Plaintiff is entitled for ad-interim protection, as
prayed for.
3. In support of these submissions, learned counsel for the
Plaintiff relied upon the provision of Section 47 of the
Registration Act, 1908 and Section 48 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 and submitted that in view of the fact that
the document of Conveyance in favour of the Plaintiff was
signed and executed on 16/04/2025 itself, the registration of
M.M.Salgaonkar
3/5 17 ial-22431-25.odt
the document at a later pint of time i.e. on 12/06/2025 cannot
be a factor weighing against the Plaintiff although another
Deed of Conveyance is executed by the Defendant No.1 at a
later point of time i.e. on 28/04/2025. In support of his
submission, he relied on the judgments in Gurbax Singh Vs.
Kartar Singh & Ors.1; Harshit Harish Jain & Anr. Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors.2; S. Arunachalam Asari (died) & Ors. Vs.
Sivan Perumal Asari & Anr.3 and Koka Jagannadha Rao Vs.
Pillarisetti Raghava Rao & Ors.4
4. Although the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have not filed any
reply to this Application, the prayer for ad-interim injunction
is strongly opposed. Learned counsel for Defendant Nos.1 and
2 vehemently submitted that the Deed of Conveyance, on
which the Plaintiff is relying, cannot be said to have
transferred any title in favour of the Plaintiff, since the same is
registered after registration of a Conveyance Deed in favour of
the Defendant No.2. It is submitted that on the day on which
the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Plaintiff was
registered, the Defendant No.1 had no right to execute the said
document. Apart from this, it is pointed out that the stamp
paper of Rs.500/-, which is a part of the Deed of Conveyance
dated 16/04/2025, does not bear signature of Defendant No.1
and it appears to have been purchased by a third person and,
therefore, it is contended that the document is unreliable.
5. In support of their contentions, Defendant Nos.1 and 2
have relied upon the judgments in Ram Saran Lall & Ors. Vs.
1 (2002) 2 SCC 611
2 (2025) 3 SCC 365
3 1968 SCC OnLine Mad 145
4 1963 SCC OnLine AP 132
M.M.Salgaonkar
4/5 17 ial-22431-25.odt
MST Domini Kuer & Ors.5; Kanwar Raj Singh (D) through
Legal Representatives Vs. Gejo (D) through Legal
Representatives & Ors.6 and Maharaj Singh & Ors. Vs. Karan
Singh (dead) through Legal Representatives & Ors.7. The
counsel for the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 also vehemently
submitted that by communication dated 08/05/2025, the
Defendant No.1 had already cancelled the power of attorney
dated 15/04/2025 and the Term Sheet and Supplementary
Term Sheet and as such, in absence of any challenge to the
cancellation of the power of attorney, the Plaintiff is not
entitled to raise any claim. Further, by pointing out various
dates about the proceedings of adjudication, it is submitted
that the document of Conveyance Deed registered in favour of
the Plaintiff cannot confer any right.
6. Learned counsel for Defendant Nos.3 to 8 made
submissions supporting the claim of the Plaintiff.
7. It has to be seen that there is a registered document of
Deed of Conveyance dated 12/06/2025 in favour of the
Plaintiff. There is no dispute about signature of the Defendant
No.1 on the said Deed of Conveyance and as on today, there is
no challenge to this Deed of Conveyance in favour of the
Plaintiff, since there is no affidavit of denial on record. Further,
payment of part consideration of Rs.8,00,00,000/- by the
Plaintiff is also not in dispute. The contentions of the
Defendant Nos.1 and 2 as regards termination of the power of
attorney and term sheets by communication dated
08/05/2025 and the effect of registration of documents in
5 1961 SCC OnLine SC 133
6 (2024) 2 SCC 416
7 (2024) 8 SCC 83
M.M.Salgaonkar
5/5 17 ial-22431-25.odt
favour of Plaintiff at a later date than the date of registration
in favour of the Defendant No.1 is a matter of trial. Having
regard to the over all factual aspects and legal submissions at
this stage, while considering the application for grant of ad-
interim injunction, I am of the view that the Plaintiff has made
out a prima facie case in view of the registered Deed of
Conveyance in its favour, particularly in view of the provisions
of Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Section 48 of
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. As such, the Plaintiff's
apprehension that on the basis of Deed of Conveyance dated
28/04/2025, Defendant No.2 may create further third party
interest cannot be ignored. In view of this, by way of ad-
interim injunction, Defendant No.2 is restrained from acting in
furtherance of the Deed of Conveyance dated 28/04/2025.
8. It is clarified that the ad-interim relief is granted only on
the basis of the oral submissions advanced by the Defendant
Nos.1 and 2 and they are entitled to file their replies.
9. The application for injunction be put up for further
consideration after six weeks.
10. In the meantime, the Defendants are entitled to file their
respective affidavits-in-reply to the application for injunction.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
M.M.Salgaonkar
