WP6586_12.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6586 OF 2012
1. Skygourmet Catering Private Limited )
a company incorporated and registered )
under the Companies Act, 1956, having )
its registered office at Off International )
Airport Approach Road, Marol, Andheri )
East, Mumbai - 400 059. )
2. WAH Restaurants Private Limited )
(Earlier known as Mars Restaurants Private )
Limited), a company incorporated and )
registered under the Companies Act, 1956, )
having its registered office at Off International)
Airport Approach Road, Marol, Andheri East,)
Mumbai - 400 059. ) … Petitioners
Vs.
1. Mars Hotels and Resorts Private Limited )
a company incorporated and registered )
under the Companies Act, 1956, having )
its registered office at Off International )
Airport Approach Road, Marol, Andheri )
East, Mumbai - 400 059. )
2. Mars Enterprises, a partnership firm registered)
under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, )
having its place of business at Off International)
Airport Approach Road, Marol, Andheri East,)
Mumbai - 400 059. ) … Respondents
Mr. P. K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Bharat Joshi a/w. Mr.
Mehul Shah and Mr. Kersi Dastoor, Advocates i/b. Phoneix Legal for
Petitioners.
Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. R. N. Narula a/w. Mr. A.
Dasgupta, Advocates i/b. Jhangiani Narula & Associates for
Respondents.
CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J.
Reserved on: 14
TH
AUGUST, 2012
Pronounced on: 13
TH
SEPTEMBER, 2012
1/30WP6586_12.sxw
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. P. K. Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Counsel for
petitioners and Mr. Aspi Chinoy, learned Senior Counsel for respondents
at length.
2. Rule. M/s. Jhangiani Narula and Associates waive service for the
respondents. By consent of the parties, rule is made returnable forthwith
and the Petition is taken up for final hearing.
3. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
Skygourmet Catering Private Limited, petitioner No.1 (original
applicant No.1), hereinafter referred to as SKY and WAH Restaurants
Private Limited (earlier known as Mars Restaurants Private Limited)
(original applicant No.2), hereinafter referred to as Mars or M.R.P.L, as
the case may be, have challenged the judgment and order dated
13.12.2011 passed by the learned Judge of Small Causes Court at
Bombay, Bandra Bench in R.E.S. Application No.8/RES/2011 as also
the judgment and order dated 10.07.2012 passed by the Appellate Bench
of Small Causes in Revision Application No.234 of 2011. By these
orders, the Courts below refused to grant the interim order in terms of
prayer clauses (d) and (e) of the R.E.S. Application No.8 / RES / 2011.
SKY and Mars / M.R.P.L. instituted the said application against
respondent No.1 - Mars Hotels and Resorts Private Limited (original
opponent No.1), hereinafter referred to as M.H.R.P.L. and respondent
No.2 – Mars Enterprises (original opponent No.2), hereinafter referred
to as M.E. for an order directing M.H.R.P.L. and M.E., theirs directors,
partners, servants, officers, agents and representatives, and persons
claiming through them to restore the essential supplies of water under
K/East-Ward, water meter and Ward No.KE@0213029 and electricity
under electric meter No.RI-SH951203 and consumer No.2003890 as
2/30WP6586_12.sxw
also to direct them to allow the access to lifts and stair cases and remove
blockage of lifts in the suit building situate at Off International
Approach Road, Marol, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400 059. The parties
shall hereinafter referred as per their status before the trial Court. The
relevant and material facts that are necessary for the disposal of the
present Petition briefly stated, are as under:
4. SKY is a company registered and incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 and is the owner of ground floor, upper basement
and lower basement in the building constructed on a plot admeasuring
4,713.79 sq.mtr. (for short 'suit property') situate in the midst of a piece
and parcel of land admeasuring in aggregate 45,104.70 sq.mtr. situate at
Village Marol, Andheri, Mumbai (for short 'larger plot'). Mars /
M.R.P.L. is the owner of first floor of the building called as 'AOH
building'. They jointly have 56.80% undivided shares, rights and title in
respect of the suit property and balance 43.20 undivided shares, rights
and title in respect of the suit property is held by M.H.R.P.L. and M.E.
jointly. Sky is engaged in the business of providing in flight catering
services to various airlines (air catering) at Mumbai and other places of
India and is one of the leading air caterers in India, providing services to
all the leading domestic airlines including Jet Airways and Kingfisher
Airlines and international airlines such as Malaysian Airlines and Saudi
Arabian Airlines. M.H.R.P.L. is also a company registered and
incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and M.E.
is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
5. It is the case of the applicants that the respondents are the owners
of the remaining floors of AOH building and are in management and
control of essential supplies in the AOH building of the applicants. The
applicants have purchased the lower basement, upper basement, ground
3/30WP6586_12.sxw
floor and first floor in the AOH building by virtue of four sale deeds
namely, (i) Indenture dated 06.10.2005, (ii) Indenture dated 01.07.2006,
(iii) Indenture dated 01.02.2008 and (iv) Indenture dated 06.02.2008.
The applicants have purchased these premises for the purpose of using
the same as an air catering unit (with ground floor kitchen) of applicant
No.1 and to meet their business requirement along with 56.80%
undivided shares, rights, title and interests in the suit property together
with proportionate share in the total FSI from respondent Nos.1 and 2
for consideration mentioned therein.
6. It is the case of the applicants that over last 5-6 years, the
applicants and the respondents entered into various agreements and
arrangements including Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated
31.07.2009. Both the parties were utilizing some common facilities in
accordance with the said arrangements. Since the respondents made
attempts to interfere with the legal rights of the applicants as purchasers
and co-owners, they were constrained to institute a civil suit in this
Court, which is still pending. Some arrangements under the said MoU
were terminated by the respondents and as per the contractual rights,
applicants initiated separate proceedings against respondents in that
regard. After termination of certain arrangements under the MoU,
respondents started interfering with essential services of the applicants.
7. It is the case of the applicants that they were desirous of obtaining
separate water, electricity and gas connections from the relevant
authorities in their name so as to avoid a situation where their essential
supplies are wrongfully disconnected by the respondents, being the
owners of the larger plot of the land. Earlier, the electricity connection
with Tata Power Company Limited was in the name of applicant No.1,
who had provided the Bank Guarantee for the electricity connection.
4/30WP6586_12.sxw
Applicant No.1 furnished a fresh Bank Guarantee on 21.07.2011 for an
amount of Rs.56,05,700/- upon the expiry of the earlier Bank Guarantee,
which was furnished at the time of availing the electricity connection.
The respondents, however, without seeking appropriate NOC from the
applicants, surreptitiously transferred the connection in the name of
respondent No.1 in or about April 2010. It is the case of the applicants
that the P-Form [for water connection required by Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai (M.C.G.M.)] is issued in the name of
the applicants for utilization of water on grant of occupation certificate
by M.C.G.M. for premises from lower basement, upper basement,
ground floor and first floor, which is the portion owned by the
applicants for specific permissive user of Air Catering Unit. The water
connection obtained by the applicants is illegally curtailed, cut off,
withheld by the respondents and unauthorizedly diverted to their hotel
from second to sixth floor by illegal installation of pipelines and electric
wires for unauthorized and illegal activity and user. The electricity
connection granted for the industrial activity is billed by Tata Power
Company Limited under the Code No.HT-II Commercial when the bills
were issued in the name of applicant No.1 till February 2010 and later
on it is clandestinely changed to the name of respondent No.1 from
March 2010 without consent of the applicant No.1. The electric
connection under consumer No.2003890 and under meter No.RISH951203 is originally granted as requisitioned for and by applicant
No.1. The original water connection was granted for the premises of the
applicants for their legal activity.
8. It is the case of the applicants that applicant No.1 initiated the
process of fresh electricity connection and accordingly applied for a
fresh connection with Reliance Energy Limited vide its letter dated
21.09.2011. The applicants were advised by the relevant authorities to
5/30WP6586_12.sxw
obtain NOC from the respondents as the respondents were the owners
and occupiers and were in management and control of the essential
supplies of the applicants. On 28.09.2011, the applicants addressed an
email to the respondents in respect of three connections with the layout
for laying down the services, which would enable them to obtain
services from the authorities. On the same day i.e. on 28.09.2011,
respondents asked the applicants to send the proposed routing and
location of all the essential supplies. The applicants forwarded the
routing map, denoting the intended route for laying down the
underground pipelines and cables installation of water, gas and
electricity connections, which they desired to obtain in their name,
alongwith the draft NOC on 08.10.2011.
9. It is the case of the applicants that the respondents, instead of
giving NOC, raised certain objections vide email dated 10.10.2011. The
applicants vide their email of 14.10.2011 requested the respondents to
suggest the proposal of routing water, electricity and gas connections as
they are having the complete know-how of the premises. On
15.10.2011, the applicants learned that the respondents would be
disconnecting the essential supplies of water, electricity and gas within
10 minutes time. Despite receiving the applicants' email of 15.10.2011,
respondents disconnected the essential supplies of electricity and water
at 14:20 hours on 15.10.2011. The applicants addressed an email to the
respondent to immediately resume / restore the supply of the said
essential services. The respondents however, did not resume / restore
the supplies and it is in these circumstances, the applicants filed the
application under Section 12-A of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats
(Regulations of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and
Transfer) Act, 1963 (for short 'MOFA') on 21.10.2011. During the
pendency of those proceedings, the applicants prayed for interim reliefs
6/30WP6586_12.sxw
in terms of prayer clauses (d) and (e) of the said application.
10. The respondents filed their written statement dated 16.01.2012
resisting the said application. It is the case of the respondents that
originally the business of catering in the name of Sky Gourmet Private
Limited was started and carried out by them. Subsequently as a business
decision, the same was sold to the applicants and consequently, the suit
property was also sold to them. It was agreed that the applicants would
obtain their own connections for water and electricity. The applicants
represented that it would take some time for them to make their
arrangements and it was agreed as a purely interim measure and
arrangement that the respondents would supply them electricity and
water for a finite period under the Common Utilities Building agreement
(CUB agreement) being the structure through which the electricity and
water lines are routed. A CUB agreement was executed in this regard on
13.03.2006. Though the period specified therein was over, the
applicants did not take any steps or action to make their own
arrangements in order to save the expenditure and the space for
installation. Though the applicants agreed to purchase the equipment,
they have resiled from the same.
11. It is the case of the respondents that the applicants had agreed to
take certain utility services in respect of part of the AOH building
owned by them by and under the CUB agreement dated 13.03.2006.
The said utility services were agreed to be supplied by the respondents
from a Common Utility Building constructed and put up by them on
their property, which did not form part of the AOH building. The grant
of such services was for a specified consideration and the terms thereof
were recorded in the CUB agreement dated 13.03.2006. The terms of
the CUB agreement dated 13.03.2006 with regard to the supply of the
7/30WP6586_12.sxw
said CUB services were modified under the terms of a further MoU
dated 31.07.2009 entered into between the parties. Clause 5 of the said
MoU, in particular, dealt with the said services. It was agreed between
the parties that upon termination of the said MoU, the applicants would
be entitled to receive the equipments listed in Annexure 5 to the said
MoU from the respondents. The respondents would be entitled to adjust
and appropriate the costs of the said equipment out of the security
deposit of Rs.6.26 crore made by the applicants. The said equipment
listed in Annexure 5 located in the Common Utility Building and the
HT/LT room, including the electric panel were to be handed over by the
respondents to the applicants and to be relocated by the applicants in the
basement of the AOH building or any other location belonging to the
applicants. The respondents denied that they are either promoters or incharge of management of the essential supplies or are managers under
Section 12-A of the MOFA.
12. The respondents further contended that on 05.08.2010, they
issued a notice of termination in respect of Clauses 4 and 5 of the MoU
dated 31.07.2009. On 03.12.2010, the applicants instituted Suit No.162
of 2011 (Suit Lodging No.3433 of 2010) on the Original Side of this
Court challenging the notice of termination and prayed for reliefs. The
parties entered into consent terms on 09.12.2010. It was agreed between
the parties that the termination of MoU dated 31.07.2009 in respect of
clause Nos.4 and 5 would take effect from 01.03.2011 and 01.07.2011
respectively dealing with the common utility services. This Court
passed ad-interim relief in terms of the minutes of order dated
09.12.2010. After passing of the consent order, the respondents called
upon the applicants on various occasions to shift the equipments listed
in Annexure 5 from Common Utility Building by 01.07.2011. On
31.08.2011, respondent No.2 gave final notice to the applicants calling
8/30WP6586_12.sxw
upon them to remove and shift the said equipments to the AOH building
and recorded that the CUB services would be discontinued on
08.09.2011.
13. On 08.09.2011, the applicants instituted Arbitration Petition
Lodging No.1001 of 2011 in this Court and moved for urgent reliefs
including seeking continuance of the CUB services and electric
connection By order dated 09.09.2011, the learned Single Judge of this
Court (Coram: S. C. Dharmadhikari, J.) recorded that as the services
have been discontinued already in such circumstances, prima facie, the
applicants herein do not have any interests in the property but they were
only to be provided facilities then post termination of the same, the
revival thereof could not be directed. The reliefs prayed therein were not
granted subject to the respondents securing the claim of the applicants
towards facilities, by furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs.6.24 crore and
keeping the same alive till the arbitral proceedings were concluded. The
order of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the applicants
before the Division Bench of this Court. By order dated 20.09.2011, the
Division Bench dismissed the Appeal. The respondents submitted that
all the aforesaid facts, proceedings and the orders passed thereon have
been suppressed by the applicants. The applicants have not approached
the Court with clean hands and, therefore, are not entitled to any relief.
14. The respondents further contended that the electric connection
and electric meter are located on the property of respondent No.1 and
not in the AOH building. From the said electric meter, the electric
supply is being routed into the transformer and from the transformer to
the separate panels located in the CUB building and two panels are
connected to the premises occupied by the applicants while other panels
are connected to the premises occupied by the respondents. The
9/30WP6586_12.sxw
respondents further contended that M/s. Tata Power Supply mandated
that the electric connections and bills would only stand in the name of
owner of the property, and accordingly, the connection was granted to
respondent No.1. Even originally, prior to March, 2008, the electric
meter was in the name of the respondents. The respondents thereafter
made reference to the exchange of correspondence between the parties
through letters / emails and submitted that the applicants are free to
install their own equipments for obtaining electric connections in their
own premises and denied that they are they were in any manner
disconnecting or disrupting water connection as alleged. All the adverse
allegations made in the application were denied.
15. Initially, the learned trial Judge refused to grant ad-interim order
on 21.10.2011 and adjourned the hearing of the matter to 31.10.2011.
Aggrieved by this refusal, the applicants filed Revision Application
No.195 of 2011 before the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court on
23.10.2011. By order dated 26.10.2011, the Appellate Bench directed
the respondents to restore electricity and water supply to the premises of
the applicants within 24 hours from passing of the order. It is the case
of the applicants that the respondents however, addressed an email on
27.10.2011 to them stating therein that they would not provide the
electricity and water in the applicants' premises. On 28.10.2011, the
applicants filed miscellaneous application joining the Senior Inspector
of Police as a party. With the help of Senior Inspector of Police, the
applicant succeeded in getting the electricity and water supply restored.
Aggrieved by the order dated 26.10.2011, the respondents instituted
Writ Petition No.9418 of 2011 in this Court. By order dated 21.11.2011,
the said Writ Petition was dismissed by directing the learned trial Judge
to hear the interim application.
10/30WP6586_12.sxw
16. By judgment and order dated 13.12.2011, the learned trial Judge
dismissed the application for interim order in terms of prayer clauses (d)
and (e) on the ground that Section 12-A of MOFA does not contemplate
granting of interim relief for restoration of essential supplies. The
applicants filed miscellaneous application for stay of operation of the
order dated 13.12.2011. The learned trial Judge stayed the operation of
the order dated 13.12.2011 and the order passed in Revision Application
No.195 of 2011 on 26.10.2011 for restoring supply of electric and water
was continued till 03.01.2012. The applicants thereafter instituted
Revision Application No.234 of 2011 on 21.12.2011 and filed separate
miscellaneous application for continuation of interim relief. On
23.12.2011, the Appellate Bench continued its order for supply of
electricity and water and the said order was extended from time to time.
Ultimately, by order dated 10.07.2012, the Appellate Bench dismissed
the Revision Application by holding that the respondents are neither
promoters nor managers under Section 12-A of MOFA and
consequently, Section 12-A of MOFA is not applicable.
17. The learned trial Judge, while passing the impugned order,
recorded the following findings:
(i) the respondents are prima facie promoters within the
meaning of Section 2(c) of MOFA;
(ii) the question whether the applicants have waived their
rights can be decided at the time of final hearing;
(iii) the question whether the application is hit by
principles of res judicata can be decided at the time of final
hearing;
(iv) the question whether the conditional NOC given by
the respondents is acceptable to the applicants or not can be
decided at the time of final hearing;
11/30WP6586_12.sxw
(v) under Section 12-A of MOFA, the Court has no
jurisdiction to grant interim order in respect of the essential
supply of services.
18. As far as Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court is
concerned, the following findings were recorded:
(i) the respondents are not promoters within the meaning
of Section 2(c) of the Act, and consequently, Section 12-A of
MOFA is not applicable;
(ii) in view of this Court declining to grant interim order
as prayed for by the applicants in the Suit and the Arbitration
Petition, they are not entitled to any interim relief;
(iii) the CUB agreement dated 13.03.2006 and the MoU
dated 31.07.2009 were executed only as a temporary
measure and till the applicants got their connections, which
they were supposed to get since 2009;
(iv) the applicants did not come to the Court with clean
hands.
Aggrieved by these decisions, the applicants have instituted the
present Petition.
19. In support of this Petition, Mr. Dhakephalkar strenuously
contended that the applicants have not suppressed any relevant and
material fact in the restoration application. He submitted that all these
facts have been set out by the applicants. The proceedings in the suit as
well as the Arbitration Petition instituted by the applicants on the
Original Side of this Court have no relevance insofar as the present
application made by them under Section 12-A of MOFA is concerned.
Alternatively, he submitted that in any case no ex-parte order was
obtained by the applicants. In fact, the learned trial Judge declined to
12/30WP6586_12.sxw
grant ad-interim relief. Aggrieved by this refusal, the applicants filed
Revision Application before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes
Court. After hearing both sides, the Appellate Bench of the Small
Causes Court ordered restoration of essential supplies. It, therefore,
cannot be said that the applicants have suppressed relevant and material
facts thereby dis-entitling them from claiming any equitable relief.
20. He further submitted that the learned trial Judge came to the
conclusion that the respondents are promoters as per Section 2(c) of
MOFA. However, the trial Court declined to grant interim relief on the
ground that under Section 12-A of MOFA, the relief can be granted at
the stage of final hearing of the application. He submitted that the
Courts below committed serious error in arriving at this conclusion on
the basis of the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging
Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short the 'Bombay Rent Act') and The
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short the 'Maharashtra Rent
Act'). He submitted that under Section 12-A of MOFA, the trial Court
has power to grant interim relief pending adjudication of the main
application.
21. He further submitted that though the trial Court recorded a
specific finding that the respondents herein are the promoters within the
meaning of Section 2(c) of MOFA, the respondents did not challenge the
said finding by filing revision application or cross-objections in the
Revision Application preferred by the applicants. In other words, he
submitted that the respondents accepted the finding recorded by the trial
Court that they are the promoters. However, in the absence of either
cross-objections or substantive Revision Application, the Appellate
Bench came to the conclusion that the respondents are not promoters
and consequently, Section 12-A of MOFA is not applicable. He
13/30WP6586_12.sxw
submitted that this is wholly impermissible. He further submitted that
the respondents are promoters or managers in-charge of the essential
supplies namely electricity supply and water supply. They cannot
withhold the essential supplies. In any case, he submitted that the
Courts below committed serious error in declining to grant interim order
pending main application, particularly when the ad-interim order is
operating in favour of the applicants since 26.10.2011. Instead of
declining to grant interim relief, the Courts below should have disposed
of the main application by continuing the interim relief. No prejudice
would have been caused to the respondents. He further submitted that in
any case, the contractual obligations arising between the parties under
the CUB agreement dated 13.03.2006 and MoU dated 31.07.2009 will
not override the statutory obligations arising between the parties under
the MOFA.
22. On the other hand, Mr. Aspi Chinoy supported the impugned
orders. He invited my attention to the CUB agreement dated
13.03.2006, and in particular clause 4 thereof, which provides that SKY
or Mars may terminate the said agreement at any time by giving 90 days
notice in writing to M.E. and upon such termination, M.E. shall refund
the interest free security deposit. He also invited my attention to the
equipments mentioned in Annexure II of the CUB agreement. He
further invited my attention to the MoU dated 31.07.2009 and in
particular, clause 5 thereof and submitted that the said clause requires
M.E. to provide SKY and M.R.P.L. with the services mentioned in the
CUB agreement for a minimum period of one year from the date of
MoU. After the expiry of one year, the CUB agreement can be
terminated by any party by giving the other party six months' prior
written notice. It also provided that if there is any default by SKY or
M.R.P.L. of any of its obligations, M.E. shall be entitled to terminate the
14/30WP6586_12.sxw
CUB agreement forthwith if such default is not remedied within 90 days
of M.E. notifying SKY or M.R.P.L., as appropriate, of such default.
Upon termination, SKY and M.R.P.L. shall be entitled to receive from
M.E., the entire equipment listed in Annexure 5 located in the Utility
Building. It also provided that upon termination all the equipment
located at the Utility Building and the HT/LT electric room and listed in
Annexure 5, shall be handed over by M.E. to SKY and M.R.P.L. and
relocated by them to the basement of the AOH building, or such other
location as may be decided by SKY or M.R.P.L.
23. Mr. Chinoy submitted that the applicants had agreed to take
certain utility services in respect of part of the AOH building owned by
them by and under the CUB agreement dated 13.03.2006. The terms of
the CUB agreement with regard to the supply of the said CUB services
were modified under the terms of a further MoU dated 31.07.2009
entered into between the parties. Clause 5 of the said MoU provided for
termination and the consequence that will follow upon the termination.
He submitted that on 05.08.2010, the respondents issued a notice of
termination in respect of clauses 4 and 5 of the MoU dated 31.07.2009.
The applicants instituted Suit No.162 of 2011 on the Original Side of
this Court on 03.12.2010. The parties entered into consent terms on
09.12.2010 and this Court passed ad-interim relief in terms of minutes
of order dated 09.12.2010. After passing of the consent order, the
respondents called upon the applicants on various occasions to shift the
equipments listed in Annexure-5 from Common Utility Building by
01.06.2010 The applicants however, failed and neglected to shift the
equipments. On 31.08.2011, respondent No.2 gave final notice to the
applicants calling upon them to remove and shift the said equipments to
the AOH building and recorded that the CUB services will be
discontinued on 08.09.2011. On 08.09.2011, the applicants instituted
15/30WP6586_12.sxw
Arbitration Petition in this Court and moved for the urgent interim
reliefs including seeking continuance of CUB services and electric
connection. By order dated 09.09.2011, the learned Single Judge of this
Court declined to grant any relief. Aggrieved by the order passed by the
learned Single, the applicants preferred Appeal before the Division
Bench of this Court, which was dismissed on 20.12.2011. He submitted
that the applicants have suppressed these facts and did not approach the
Court with clean hands. He submitted that the applicants are, therefore,
not entitled to any equitable relief.
24. He submitted that the respondents are not promoters within the
meaning of Section 2(c) of MOFA. He invited my attention to Sections
4 and 16 and submitted that the applicants and the respondents are coowners of land and building. He further submitted that none of the
documents between the parties, there is reference to the provisions of
MOFA. MOFA does not contemplate execution of conveyance to any
individual party. It also does not contemplate co-ownership between the
parties. The applicants and the respondents are managing their
respective properties separately. He, therefore, submitted that no case is
made out by the applicants and the Petition deserves to be dismissed.
25. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned
Counsel appearing for the parties. I have also perused the material on
record. It is not in dispute that the applicants have purchased the lower
basement, upper basement, ground floor and first floor in the AOH
building under four sale deeds namely (i) Indenture dated 06.10.2005,
(ii) Indenture dated 01.07.2006, (iii) Indenture dated 01.02.2008 and (iv)
Indenture dated 06.02.2008, from the respondents. The applicants have
purchased these premises along with 56.80% undivided shares, rights,
title and interests in the suit property together with proportionate share
16/30WP6586_12.sxw
in the total FSI from respondents. It is also not in dispute that initially,
the parties entered into CUB agreement on 13.03.2006.
26. The said agreement recorded that the utility building contains
certain equipments and facilities as specified in Annexure II to the said
agreement. The equipment and facilities as specified in Annexure II
reads as under:
Sr.
No.
Item Amount
in lacs
1 4 Nos. Chiller units with desuperheaters '158.00
2 2 Nos. Catipillar gensets (1,500 KVA each with
installation)
'231.00
3 Main Electrical Panel (SKY) '67.00
4 Cost of genset transferred to SKY MAA
(loss on transfer)
'14.00
5 3 Nos. hot water boilers + proportionate cost of
chimney / pumps and panel
'51.00
6 Hydropneumatic & filtration system '35.00
7 75% of STP plant (based on discharge of STP) '26.00
8 75% cost of HT sub-station construction and 1
transformer of 2,000 KVA
'37.00
9 50% cost of Elec / Water deposits paid '7.00
'626.00
27. The terms of the CUB agreement with regard to supply of said
CUB services were modified under the terms of MoU dated 31.07.2009.
It is the case of the respondents that it was agreed between the parties
that the applicants would obtain their own connections for water and
electricity. They represented that it would take some time for them to
make their arrangements. It was, therefore, agreed as a purely interim
measure and arrangement that the respondents would supply them
electricity and water for a finite period under the Common Utilities
Building agreement (CUB agreement). Clause 5 of the MoU dated
31.07.2009 reads as under:
17/30WP6586_12.sxw
5. COMMON UTILITY BUILDING
5.1 ME shall continue to provide Sky and MRPL with the
services mentioned in the CUB Agreement, and Sky and MRPL
shall continue to pay to ME charges of Rs.10,000/- per month,
for a minimum period of one year from the date hereof. After
the expiry of one year from the date hereof, any party may
terminate the CUB Agreement by providing the other party with
6 months prior written notice. Provided that, if there is any
default by Sky or MRPL of any of its obligations under this
agreement, ME shall be entitled to terminate the CUB agreement
forthwith if such default is not remedied within 90 days of ME
notifying Sky or MRPL, as appropriate, of such default.
5.2 Upon termination, SKY and MRPL shall be entitled to
receive from ME the entire equipment listed in Annexure 5
hereto and presently located in the Utility Building and ME shall
be entitled to adjust and appropriate the cost thereof as stated in
the said Annexure out of the security deposit held.
5.3 Upon termination all the equipment located at the Utility
Building and the HT/LT electric room and listed in Annexure 5,
shall be handed over by ME to Sky and MRPL and relocated by
them to the basement of the AOH Building, or such other
location as may be decided by Sky or MRPL. Upon the
completion of such transfer and relocation, ME shall refund to
SKY and MRPL, the balance remaining due out of interest-free
refundable security deposit of Rs.6,26,00,000/- as defined in
clause 1.1 - CUB Agreement above after appropriating there
from the cost of the equipment as set out in Annexure 5.
28. Clause 5.1 extracted hereinabove prima facie shows that ME
shall continue to provide SKY and M.R.P.L. with the services mentioned
in the agreement for a minimum period of one year from the date of
MoU. After the expiry of one year from the date of MoU, any party can
terminate the CUB agreement by providing the other party with six
months prior written notice. The minimum period of one year expired
on 30.07.2010.
29. The respondents gave notice of termination on 05.08.2010 in
respect of clauses 4 and 5 of MoU dated 31.07.2009. The applicants
instituted Suit No.162 of 2011 on the Original Side of this Court
18/30WP6586_12.sxw
challenging the notice of termination. The applicants inter alia prayed
for declaration that they are entitled to use, occupation and possession of
the suit building and the suit property as more particularly described
therein and are entitled to carry on their business activities without any
hindrance or interference by the respondents-defendants therein; for
mandatory and permanent injunction in their favour and against the
respondents from in any manner obstructing the applicants from
carrying on its business activities peaceably without any hindrance or
interference from the suit building and suit property. The applicants also
prayed for interim relief pending suits restraining the respondents from
obstructing the applicant from carrying on its business activities
peaceably without any hindrance or interference from the respondents.
The parties entered into consent terms on 09.12.2010. It was agreed
between the parties that the termination of MoU dated 31.07.2009 in
respect of Clauses 4 and 5 would take effect from 01.03.2011 and
01.07.2011 respectively dealing with the common utility services. This
Court passed ad-interim relief in terms of minutes of order dated
09.12.2010. In other words, the applicants agreed that the notice of
termination will take effect from 01.07.2011 in respect of Clause No.5.
Clause 5 of the MoU provided the consequences, which will follow
upon termination. Clause 5.2 provided that upon termination, SKY and
M.R.P.L. shall be entitled to receive from M.E., the entire equipments
listed in Annexure - 5 located in the utility building and M.E. shall be
entitled to adjust and appropriate the cost thereof as stated in the said
Annexure out of the security deposit held. Clause 5.3 provided that
upon termination of the equipments located at the utility building and
the HT/LT electric room and listed in Annexure 5 shall be handed over
by M.E. to SKY and M.R.P.L. and relocated by them to the basement of
the AOH building, or such other location as may be decided by SKY or
M.R.P.L. It is in this context, the respondents called upon the applicants
19/30WP6586_12.sxw
to shift the equipments listed in Annexure 5 from Common Utility
Building. The equipments listed in Annexure 5 are to the following
effect:
PLANT ROOM EQUIPMENT CODE
01 Boiler 3 16 Primary Pump
02 Boiler 2 17 Primary Pump
03 Boiler 1 18 Primary Pump
04 Chimney 19 Chilled Water Makeup Tank
05 Air Compressor 20 Chilled Water Expansion Tank
06 Hot Water Pumps 21 Pump for 18/20
07 Hot Water Pump Panel 22 Chiller 1
08 VFO Panel - 1/2 23 Chiller 2
09 Club Secondary Pump 24 Chiller 3
10 Club Secondary Pump 25 Main Panel
11 Club Secondary Pump 26 Capacitor Bank
12 Hotel Secondary Pump 27 Reliance Main Panel
13 Hotel Secondary Pump 28 Chilled Water System Panel
14 Hotel Secondary Pump 29 Treated Water SUMP Pump
Panel
15 Hotel Secondary Pump
30. Respondent No.2 ultimately gave final notice to the applicants on
31.08.2011 calling upon them to remove and shift the equipments
mentioned in the said Annexure 5 to the AOH building and recorded that
the CUB services would be discontinued on 09.09.2011.
31. The applicants instituted the Arbitration Petition (L) No.1001 of
2011 in this Court and moved for urgent reliefs including seeking
continuance of CUB services and electric connection. In the Arbitration
Petition, the applicants inter alia prayed (i) for issuing directions to the
respondents to restore the CUB facilities / services and other related
services, which were disrupted by them; (ii) for granting a temporary
order and injunction restraining the respondents from disrupting CUB
facilities; (iii) for granting a temporary order and injunction restraining
20/30WP6586_12.sxw
the respondents from taking any action against the applicants in terms of
the MoU, pending the commencement and completion of arbitral
proceedings. The learned Single Judge (Coram: S. C. Dharmadhikari,
J.) disposed of the Petition on 09.09.2011. Paragraph 4 of the said order
reads as under:
“4] After hearing both sides, to my mind, no case is made out
for any urgent ad-interim reliefs. Services have been discontinued
on the own showing of petitioners. However, even if it is argued
that the suit was in relation to some other grievances, yet, both
clauses which have been referred to by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for petitioners, state that there is no interest in the
property nor in the land or the structures. What has been agreed
between parties is that these respondents shall continue to provide
the services mentioned in the agreement and the charges thereof
shall be paid. There may be an arrangement with regard to certain
machinery or equipment which is described in the Annexures, yet,
both sides have understood the arrangement to mean that prima
facie on certain sums being paid, the facilities would be extended.
Further, they were aware as to how the termination will be
effected. In fact the termination appears to have been effected
already, but, there has been some arrangement for the period
for it actually coming into force. In such circumstances and
when prima facie the petitioners do not have any interest in the
property but they were only to be provided facilities, then to my
mind, post termination of the same the revival thereof cannot
be directed. More so, when parties are not ad idem and there is
dispute with regard to obligations under the clauses referred to
above of the agreement in question. That is a matter for the
Arbitrators to decide. Presently, the services have been
terminated and all that is pleaded is that there were some
negotiations and discussions but admittedly no agreement could
be reached, then, allowing the petitioner to continue with the
services would mean granting of reliefs at this stage itself. In
the light of the fact that the respondents are ready and willing to
secure the claim towards equipments and any rights flowing
allegedly for the use of said facilities under the said agreement, the
reliefs prayed cannot be granted.”
32. The learned Single Judge prima facie recorded that the applicants
did not make out a case for urgent ad-interim reliefs. It was further
recorded that the termination has been effected already and in such
circumstances, the applicants do not have any interest in the property
but they were only to be provided facilities and post-termination, the
21/30WP6586_12.sxw
revival thereof cannot be directed. The learned Single Judge also
observed that the dispute with regard to obligations under the Clauses
referred to in the agreement is a matter for the Arbitrators to decide. It
was also observed that allowing the applicants to continue with the
services would mean granting of reliefs at interim stage itself. The
learned Single Judge declined to grant interim relief as prayed for as
respondents were ready and willing to secure the claim towards
equipments and any rights flowing allegedly for the use of said facilities
under the said agreement. Aggrieved by this order, the applicants
preferred Appeal (L) No.607 of 2011 before the Division Bench of this
Court, which was dismissed on 20.09.2011. In other words, the
applicants could not secure any interim order either in the Suit or the
Arbitration Petition. It is also not in dispute that the parties have not
initiated any proceedings before the Arbitrators.
33. The applicants did not get any interim order either in Suit No.162
of 2011 or in Arbitration Petition (L)No.1001 of 2011. It is only
thereafter, the applicants instituted the present restoration application.
The learned trial Judge declined to grant interim relief on the ground
that under Section 12-A of MOFA, the Court has no jurisdiction to grant
interim order in respect of the essential supply of services. The learned
trial Judge prima facie held that the respondents are promoters within
the meaning of Section 2(c) of MOFA and the question whether the
respondents are promoters or not can be decided at the time of final
hearing. As against this, the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court
held that the respondents are not promoters within the meaning of
Section 2(c) and consequently, Section 12-A of MOFA is not applicable.
The Appellate Bench declined to grant interim order on the following
grounds (i) this Court declined to grant interim order as prayed for by
the applicant in the Suit and Arbitration Petition, and therefore, they are
22/30WP6586_12.sxw
not entitled to any interim relief, (ii) the CUB agreement dated
13.03.2006 and the MoU dated 31.07.2009 were executed only as a
temporary measure and till the applicants got their connections, which
they were supposed to get since 2009, and (iii) the applicants did not
come to the Court with clean hands as they suppressed the earlier
litigation. Prima facie, I am of the opinion that the reasons (i) to (iii)
given by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court cannot be
faulted with.
34. This is particularly so as it is the case of the applicants that they
were desirous of obtaining separate water, electricity and gas
connections from the relevant authorities in their name so as to avoid a
situation where their essential supplies are wrongfully disconnected by
the respondents, being the owners of the larger plot of land. Applicant
No.1 accordingly initiated the process of fresh electricity connection and
applied for a fresh connection with Reliance Energy Limited vide its
letter dated 21.09.2011. It is the case of the respondents that it was
agreed between the parties that the applicants would obtain their own
connections for water and electricity. They represented that it will take
some time for them to make their arrangements. It was, therefore,
agreed as a purely interim measure and arrangement that the
respondents would supply them electricity and water for a finite period
under the CUB agreement. As noted earlier, respondent No.2 issued
notice of termination dated 05.08.2010. The applicants instituted Suit
No.162 of 2011 (Suit Lodging No.3433 of 2010) on the Original Side of
this Court challenging the termination and praying for interim reliefs.
The parties entered into consent terms on 09.12.2010. It was agreed
between the parties that termination of MoU dated 31.07.2009 in respect
of clause No.5 would take effect from 01.07.2011. This Court passed
ad-interim relief in terms of minutes of order dated 09.12.2010. The
respondents called upon the applicants on various occasions to shift the
23/30WP6586_12.sxw
equipments listed in Annexure-5 from Common Utility Building by
01.07.2011. Respondent No.2 gave final notice on 31.08.2011 to the
applicants calling upon them to remove and shift the said equipments to
AOH building and recorded that CUB services would be discontinued
on 08.09.2011. The applicants instituted Arbitration Petition (L)
No.1001 of 2011 in this Court and moved for urgent relief including
seeking discontinuance of CUB services and electric connection. The
learned Single Judge declined to grant any interim relief. Aggrieved by
this order, the applicants preferred Appeal before the Division Bench of
this Court, which was dismissed on 20.09.2011. I am, therefore, of the
opinion that prima facie the applicants have not made out case for grant
of interim relief. The learned trial Judge has observed that question
whether the respondents are promoters or not can be decided at the time
of final hearing. As the main application is pending, I refrain to go into
the question whether the respondents are promoters or managers incharge of the essential supplies. The finding recorded by the Appellate
Bench that the respondents are not promoters will have, therefore, to be
treated as a prima facie finding and the learned trial Judge will decide
the restoration application uninfluenced by observation / finding
recorded by the Appellate Bench.
35. The learned trial Judge upon comparison of Section 24 (2-A) of
the Bombay Rent Act and Section 29(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Act
with Section 12-A of MOFA came to the conclusion that the Court has
no jurisdiction under Section 12-A to grant interim order in respect of
the essential supply of services. Section 12-A of MOFA reads as under:
12A. Manager not to cut-off, withhold, curtail or reduce
essential supply or service.-
(1) No person, who is a promoter, or who is in- charge of
management or connected with the management of a block
or building of flats, whether as member of a managing
committee. director, secretary or otherwise, or is
responsible for the maintenance thereof (herein after in this
24/30WP6586_12.sxw
section referred to as the manager”) shall, without just and
sufficient cause, either by himself or through any person,
cut off, withhold, or in any manner curtail or reduce, any
essential supply or service enjoyed by the person who has
taken a flat (or by any person in occupation thereof through
or under him) in respect of the flat taken or agreed to be
taken by him.
(2) The person who has taken or agreed to take the flat or
the occupier may, if the manager has contravened the
provisions of sub-section (I), make an application to the
Court for a direction to restore such supply or service.
(3) If the Court on enquiry finds that the applicant or the
person through or under whom he is in occupation has been
in enjoyment of the essential supply or service, and that it
was cut off or withheld or curtailed or reduced by the
manager without just and sufficient cause, the Court shall
make an order directing the manager to restore such supply
or service before a date to be specified in the order.
(4) The manager who fails to restore the supply or service
before the date so specified, shall for each day during
which the default continues thereafter, be liable upon a
further direction by the Court to that effect, to fine which
may extend to one hundred rupees.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the
time being in force,-
(a) in Greater Bombay, the Court of Small Causes,
Bombay,
(b) in any area for which a Court of Small Causes is
established under the Provincial Small Cause Courts
Act, 1887, such Court, and
(c) elsewhere, the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior
Division), shall have jurisdiction to decide any application
made under sub-section (2), and no other Court shall have
jurisdiction to entertain such application. No appeal shall
lie from any order made on such application; but in Greater
Bombay a bench of two judges of the Court of Small
Causes, Bombay which shall not include the Judge who
made such order, and elsewhere the District Court, may for
the purpose of satisfying itself that the order made was
according to law, call for the case in which such order was
made and the Bench or Court aforesaid or the District judge
or any Judge to which the case may be referred by the
District Judge, shall pass such order with respect thereto as
it or he thinks fit.
(6) Any manager who contravenes the provisions of subsection (1) shall, on conviction be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months,
or with fine, or with both.
(7) The offence under sub-section (6) shall be cognizable,
and shall not be triable by any Court inferior to that of a
1[Metropolitan Magistrate, or a Judicial Magistrate of the
25/30WP6586_12.sxw
First Class].
Explanation I. - In this section, essential supply or service
includes the supply of water, electricity, lights in passages
and on stair-cases, and lifts and conservancy or sanitary
service.
Explanation II. - For the purposes of this section,
withholding any essential supply or service shall include
acts or omissions attributable to the manager on account of
which the essential supply or service is cut off by the local
authority or any other competent authority.
36. Section 24 of the Bombay Rent Act and Section 29 of the
Maharashtra Rent Act are identically worded. Section 29 of the
Maharashtra Rent Act reads as under:
“29. Landlord not to cut-off or withhold essential supply or
service.
(1) No landlord, either himself or through any person acting or
purporting to act on his behalf, shall, without just or sufficient cause,
cut-off or withhold any essential supply or service enjoyed by the
tenant in respect of the premises let to him.
(2) A tenant in occupation of the premises may, if the landlord has
contravened the provisions of sub-section (1), make an application to
the court for a direction to restore such supply or service.
(3) Having regard to the circumstances of a particular case the court,
may, if it is satisfied that it is necessary to make an interim order,
make such order directing the landlord to restore the essential supply
or service before the date specified in such order, before giving notice
to the landlord of the enquiry to be made in the application under subsection (3) or during the pendency of such enquiry. On the failure of
the landlord to comply with such interim order of the court, the
landlord shall be liable to the same penalty as is provided for in subsection (4).
(4) If the court on inquiry finds that the tenant has been in enjoyment
of the essential supply or service and that it was cut-off or withheld
by the landlord without just or sufficient cause, the court shall make
an order directing the landlord to, restore such supply or service
before a date to be specified in the order. Any landlord who fails, to
restore the supply or service before the date so specified, shall, for
each day during which the default continues thereafter, be liable upon
further directions by the court to that effect, to fine which may extend
to one hundred rupees.
(5) Any landlord, who contravenes, the provisions of sub-section (1),
shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to
one thousand rupees or with both.
(6) An application under this section may be made jointly by all or
26/30WP6586_12.sxw
any of the tenants of the premises situated in the same building.
Explanation.- In this section,-
(a) essential supply or service includes supply of water, electricity,
lights in passages and on staircases, lifts and conservancy or sanitary
service;
(b) withholding any essential supply or service shall include acts or
omissions attributable to the landlord on account of which the
essential supply or service is cut-off by the municipal authority or any
other competent authority.
(7) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-sections (1) to (6) or
any other law for the time being in force, where the tenant,-
(a) who has been in enjoyment of any essential supply or service and
the landlord has withheld the same, or
(b) who desires to have, at his own cost, any other essential supply or
service for the premises in his occupation, the tenant may apply to the
Municipal or any other authority authorized in this behalf, for the
permission or for supply of the essential service and it shall be lawful
for that authority to grant permission for, supply of such essential
supply or service applied for without insisting on production of a "No
Objection Certificate" from the landlord by such tenant.”
37. Section 12A(5) provides that notwithstanding anything contained
in any law for the time being in force in Greater Bombay, the Court of
small Causes, Bombay shall have jurisdiction to decide any application
made under sub-section (2), and no other shall have jurisdiction to
entertain such application. In other words, Section 12-A(5) confers
exclusive jurisdiction upon the Court of Small Causes, Bombay. The
Court of Small Causes in Greater Bombay is constituted under the
Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 (for short '1882 Act').
Section 5 provides that there shall be in each of the towns of Calcutta,
Madras and Bombay, a Court to be called the Court of Small Causes of
Calcutta, Madras or Bombay as the case may be. Section 9 empowers
the High Court to frame rules having the force of law to prescribe the
procedure to be followed and the practice to be observed by the Small
Causes Court. Section 16 provides that all questions, other than
questions relating to procedure or practice, which arise in suits or other
proceedings under this Act in the Small Causes Court shall be dealt with
27/30WP6586_12.sxw
and determined according to the law for the time being administered
by the High Court in the exercise of its ordinary original civil
jurisdiction. Section 17 lays down that the local limits of the
jurisdiction of each of the Small Causes Court shall be the local limits
for the time being of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High
Court. In view of the provisions of 1882 Act, all questions other than
the questions relating to procedure of practice, which arise in suits or
proceedings are required to be dealt with by the Small Causes Court
according to the law for the time being administered by the High
Court in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. This
Court has made Rules called as Presidency Small Cause Court Rules.
Rule 2 thereof reads as under:
“(2) The portions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of
1908) as modified from time to time by any competent legislature in
its application to the State of Maharashtra, with its First Schedule as
amended by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under Section
122 of the said Code from time to time upto 1
st
May 1968, specified
in the first column of the Schedule hereto annexed shall, subject to
the additions, alterations and modifications specified in the second
and the third columns of that Schedule, extend and shall be applied
to the Small Cause Court, and the procedure prescribed thereby shall
be the procedure to be followed in the Court in all suits cognizable
by it except where such procedure is inconsistent with the procedure
prescribed by any specific provisions of the Presidency Small Cause
Courts Act, 1882.”
38. In view of these provisions, I am unable to agree with the finding
recorded by the learned trial Judge that while considering the
application under Section 12-A of MOFA, the Court has no jurisdiction
to grant interim relief pending the main application . This is also to be
appreciated in the backdrop of Explanation I to Section 12-A. The said
Explanation provides that essential supply of service includes the supply
of water, electricity, lights in passages and on stair-cases, and lifts and
conservancy or sanitary service. It hardly needs to be emphasized that
the supply of water and electricity is essential in its very nature. It is
common knowledge that the proceedings under Section 12-A of MOFA
28/30WP6586_12.sxw
for restoration of essential supply of services are not disposed of with
expedition and promptitude. Even otherwise, it is settled position in law
that if the Court has power to grant final relief, it has also power to grant
interim relief unless the provisions of the particular Statute expressly
say otherwise. There is no express provision in MOFA, which prohibits
the Court from granting interim relief pending adjudication of the main
proceedings under Section 12-A. As held by the learned Single Judge of
this Court (Coram: V. C. Daga, J.) in Deshmukh and Company Vs.
Avinash V. Khandekar, 2006(2) Bom.C.R.321, while granting interim
relief, the Court has also to take in account whether the interim relief is
claimed in the aid of final relief so as to maintain status quo ante or to
preserve status of parties. In the present case, interim relief is claimed
by the applicants in the aid of final relief. I am, therefore, of the opinion
that pending adjudication of the main application under Section 12-A, if
the Court, upon enquiry, comes to the conclusion that a case is made out
for the grant of interim relief, it has the requisite power to grant interim
relief in appropriate cases.
39. In the result, I am of the opinion that the applicants have not
prima facie made out a case for grant of interim relief pending the main
application as they failed to obtain such reliefs, both, in the Suit and
Arbitration Petition filed on the Original Side of this Court. I also
prima facie agree with the finding recorded by the Appellate Bench of
the Small Causes Court that the CUB agreement dated 13.03.2006 and
MoU dated 31.07.2009 were executed only as a temporary measure. It
was agreed between the parties that the applicants would obtain their
own connections for water and electricity and since the applicants
represented that it would take some time for them to make their
arrangements, it was agreed as a purely interim measure and
arrangement that the respondents would supply them electricity and
29/30WP6586_12.sxw
water for a finite period. I also prima facie agree with the finding
recorded by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court that the
applicants did not approach the Court with clean hands as they did not
disclose the proceedings of Suit No.162 of 2011 and Arbitration Petition
(L)No.1001 of 2011. The applicants are prima facie not entitled to
claim equitable relief.
40. In the result, the Petition fails and the same is dismissed. Rule is
discharged. In the circumstances of the case, there shall, however, be no
order as to costs.
41. It is made clear that the learned trial Judge shall decide the main
application as expeditiously as possible, and in any case, within three
months from production of this order as the application is for restoration
of essential supply of services. The learned trial Judge will decide the
said application uninfluenced by any observations made by the Courts
below as also any observations made in this order and shall decide the
same on the basis of material on record and in accordance with law.
42. At this stage, Mr. Dhakephalkar orally prays for continuation of
the ad-interim order passed by this Court on 16.07.2012.
43. Since the applicants desire to challenge this order before the
higher Court, in my opinion, the request made on behalf of the
applicants is reasonable. Hence, the ad-interim order, below exhibit-9
granted by the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court and which
was continued by this Court, shall remain in force for the period of four
weeks from today. During this period, the applicants shall remove and
lift the equipments listed in Annexure-5 from Common Utility Building
to the AOH Building.
(R. G. KETKAR, J.)
30/30
Minal Parab
