[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sadafuli Finvest Private Limited vs Suraj Properties Pvt Ltd And Ors on 30 March, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:15087
9-wp-7023-2023.doc
Shabnoor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7023 OF 2023
Suraj Properties Ltd. & Anr. ... Petitioners
V/s.
Maria Suraj Cooperative Housing
Society Ltd & Anr. ... Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.370 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 7023 OF 2023
Sadafuli Finvest Private Limited ... Applicant
In the matter between
Suraj Properties Ltd. & Anr. ... Petitioners
V/s.
Maria Suraj Cooperative Housing
Society Ltd & Anr. ... Respondents
Mr. Vishal Kanade with Mr. Raj Adhia i/b Economic
Laws Practice, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Mamta Shrivastva, AGP, for the State - Respondent
No.2.
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, with Mr. Aditya Miskita, Mr.
Umair Merchant, Ms. Aayushi Gohil, Ms. Rima
Ajmerwalla, Ms. Kanak Purohit i/b M/s. M. T. Miskita
& Co., for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Prakash Shah, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. Durgaprasad
Poojari i/b PDS Legal, for Applicant in IA/370/20226.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : MARCH 30, 2026
9-wp-7023-2023.doc
P.C.:
1. The present Petition is directed against the order dated 17
February 2023 passed by Respondent No. 2, whereby the
application preferred by Respondent No. 1 seeking grant of
unilateral deemed conveyance came to be allowed. The challenge,
in substance, is founded on the contention that the said order
suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record and reflects
improper exercise of jurisdiction.
2. The facts giving rise to the present Petition, briefly stated,
disclose that one Mr. Roque Francis Fernandes, Mr. Vincent Danial
Concessio, and Ms. Emma Mary Isabella Concessio, acting as
Trustees of Manuel Gonsalves Trust, were seized and possessed of
the subject property and held valid title thereto. It is an admitted
position that by a Deed of Conveyance dated 29 October 1985, the
said Trustees transferred the property in favour of Petitioner No. 2,
who acted in his capacity as Director and nominee of Petitioner
No. 1. This foundational transaction assumes significance, as the
entire claim of the Petitioners is based upon the legality and
subsistence of the said conveyance. Pursuant to the said
conveyance, and after securing requisite permissions from the
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Petitioner No. 1
undertook construction of a building known as "Maria Salisbury
Park" on the subject property. The development activity carried out
by the Petitioners is relied upon to demonstrate their possession,
control, and investment in the property, thereby asserting their
continuing interest therein.
9-wp-7023-2023.doc
3. It is further borne out from the record that on 17 October
1987, Petitioner No. 1 executed agreements for sale with various
purchasers in respect of flats proposed to be constructed in the
said building. The uniformity of terms and conditions across such
agreements indicates a standardized transaction in compliance
with statutory requirements. Subsequently, on 17 June 1992, the
Municipal Corporation issued an Occupation Certificate for the
building, and possession of the flats was handed over to the
respective purchasers from time to time.
4. In or about August 2022, Respondent No. 1 approached
Respondent No. 2 by filing an application seeking deemed
conveyance of the property. The Petitioners, in response, filed an
application dated 15 October 2022 seeking production of
documents under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Rules, with a
view to substantiate their objections. However, by the impugned
order dated 17 February 2023, Respondent No. 2 proceeded to
allow the application of Respondent No. 1 and granted deemed
conveyance in its favour, including with respect to a portion of the
property alleged to be under lease. The Petitioners, being
aggrieved by such adjudication, have invoked the writ jurisdiction
of this Court.
5. Mr. Kanade, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners,
submitted that the Competent Authority has exercised its
jurisdiction in an illegal and excessive manner, without duly
considering the material aspects of the case. It was contended that
a Civil Suit bearing No. 6749 of 2005 is pending at the instance of
the original owner-Trust, wherein the very Deed of Conveyance
9-wp-7023-2023.doc
dated 29 October 1985 is under challenge on the ground that it is
illegal, invalid, and void ab initio, inter alia for want of prior
permission of the Charity Commissioner under Section 36 of the
Maharashtra Public Trusts Act. According to the Petitioners, the
pendency of such proceedings strikes at the root of the title
claimed by them and ought to have been given due weight.
6. It was further submitted that once the Civil Court is seized of
the question relating to the validity of the conveyance, principles
of judicial discipline and propriety require that the Competent
Authority, while exercising summary jurisdiction, ought to refrain
from rendering findings which may overlap or conflict with the
adjudication in the substantive civil proceedings. The submission
proceeds on the basis that parallel determinations may result in
inconsistency and prejudice to the parties.
7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners additionally contended
that the Competent Authority failed to properly appreciate the
effect of a lease deed executed by the society in favour of one Mr.
Naval J. Ardeshir. It was urged that such transaction has a direct
bearing on the nature and extent of rights in the property. Reliance
was placed on the judgment of this Court in Kashish Park Reality
Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 3 Mah LJ 778,
particularly paragraph 23 thereof, to submit that the powers under
Section 11 of MOFA are summary in nature and must be exercised
with circumspection. It was argued that the impugned order
travels beyond the limited scope of inquiry permissible under
Section 11 and, therefore, warrants interference.
9-wp-7023-2023.doc
8. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted
that the execution of agreements under Section 4 of MOFA, the
existence of sanctioned plans, and the issuance of occupation
certificate are not in dispute. It was contended that the promoter
failed to execute the conveyance within the statutory period of
four months from the date of registration of the society, thereby
attracting the provisions of deemed conveyance. It was further
urged that the mere pendency of a civil suit between the owner
and the developer does not create a legal bar on the exercise of
statutory powers by the Competent Authority.
9. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of
the material on record, including the agreements executed under
Section 4 of MOFA and the sanctioned plans, this Court finds that
the contentions raised by the Petitioners cannot be accepted. The
legal position is well settled that the scope of inquiry under Section
11 of MOFA is limited and summary in nature. The Competent
Authority is required to examine only whether there exists a valid
agreement under Section 4, whether the society is entitled to
conveyance, and whether there is failure on the part of the
promoter to discharge its statutory obligation. Any inquiry beyond
these aspects would fall outside its jurisdiction.
10. In the present case, there is no dispute regarding execution
of agreements under Section 4 of MOFA. There is also no serious
dispute regarding the extent of the property to be conveyed.
Further, it stands admitted that the developer has failed to execute
the conveyance within the prescribed statutory period. These
undisputed facts satisfy the essential requirements for grant of
9-wp-7023-2023.doc
deemed conveyance.
11. The principal contention of the Petitioners rests on the
pendency of the Civil Suit filed by the Trust challenging the
validity of the conveyance on the ground of non-compliance with
Section 36 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act. However, in the
absence of any interim order restraining the grant of deemed
conveyance, such pendency cannot operate as a legal embargo on
the exercise of statutory powers under Section 11 of MOFA.
Accepting such contention would defeat the very object of the
statute, which is to ensure timely conveyance in favour of flat
purchasers.
12. The subject matter of the said suit pertains to adjudication of
title and validity of the conveyance in the context of statutory
compliance under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act. Such issues
fall within the domain of the Civil Court and can be adjudicated
independently. The same does not divest the Competent Authority
of its jurisdiction to grant deemed conveyance, which is based on a
distinct statutory scheme intended to protect the rights of flat
purchasers.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the
impugned order passed by the Competent Authority does not
suffer from any jurisdictional error, illegality, or perversity
warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. The order reflects due consideration of relevant factors
within the scope of its statutory powers.
9-wp-7023-2023.doc
14. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed, as no case for
interference is made out.
15. In view of the dismissal of the Petition, the Interim
Application does not survive and is disposed of accordingly. It is,
however, clarified that if any independent rights of any intervenor
are affected, it shall be open to such party to pursue appropriate
remedies in accordance with law.
16. There shall be no order as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
