LexMARGARET ALMEIDA & ORS. ETC. versus BOMBAY CATHOLIC CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 5 S.C.R. 871 MARGARET ALMEIDA & ORS. ETC. v. BOMBAY CATHOLIC CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS. (Civil Appeal N'os. 2683-2685 of 2013) MARCH 22, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] A B Interim Relief - Entitlement - Housing Society passes resolution on 25.9.1966 for re-development of the area which c was let out to 69 tenant members - As per resolution, after redevelopment, 230 tenements would be constructed out of which 161 were meant for allottee-members and 69 for the tenant-members - The resolution, when challenged by tenant- members u/s. 91 of Co-operative Societies Act, attained D finality in favour of the Society- 161 beneficiaries also made deposits in the year 1966 to the Society - The tenant- members again challenged the resolution u/s. 18 of the Act seeking bifurcation of the Society, which issue is still pending - The Society by its resolution dated 6.12.2009 gave effect E to its earlier resolution dated 25. 9. 1966 - Consequential conveyance deed dated 7.12.2009 was executed- 15 out of the 69 tenant-members, then filed suits seeking direction to restrain the society from taking steps in furtherance of resolution dated 6. 12. 2009 and the consequential conveyance deed - Interim relief not granted - In Notice of F Motion, Single Judge of High Court granted interim relief and subsequently made the interim order absolute - Division Bench of High Court vacated the interim . order - ·Held: The tenant-members are not entitled to interim relief - By vacating the interim order no irreparable loss is caused to them - They G being in minority (initially at the time of filing of suit 15 and when reached this Court reduced to 5) as against 225 members, balance of convenience is in favour of the majority 871 H 872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R. A and not the contesting tenant-members - Their plea to procure a better offer for development than that offered to Society, also shows that they are agreeable to development and the initiation of proceedings for restraining development - lacks bonafide - The tenant-members are also not entitled B to the interim relief as they do not have proprietary interest in the subject matter. The respondent-housing Society developed three blocks of land namely 'Willingdon West', 'Willingdon South' and 'Willingdon East'. It sold 'Willingdon West' C area to shareholders on freehold basis and leased out the area in 'Willingdon South' to its shareholders. In the 'Willingdon East' the respondent-Society constructed 25 cottages and the same were let out to tenant-members D (including the appellants). The respondent-Society passed a resolution on 25- 9-1966 to redevelop the land in 'Willingdon East' by raising new apartments by demolishing 25 cottages, to house 230 tenements. Out of the 230 tenements, 161 E tenements would be meant for allottee-members and the remaining 69 tenements for the tenant-members who were already in occupation of 25 cottages. The tenant-members assailed the resolution uls.91 of Co-operative Societies Act. After the same was finally F decided against the tenant members, the respondent- Society invited applications for allotment of flats as per the resolution dated 25.9.1966 and collected advance from about 200 members. G The tenant-members again challenged the H redevelopment proposal u/s.18 of Co-operative Societies Act, praying for the bifurcation of the Catholic society into two i.e. one comprising of only tenant-members and the other comprising of all non tenant-members. The same MARGARET ALMEIDA v. BOMBAY CATHOLIC CO-OP 873 HOUSING SOC. LTD. also did not culminate in favour of the tenant-members, A as the teoant-members ultimately withdrew their . challenge and undertook to co-operate with the respondent-Society for redeveloping the Willingdon East area as envisaged in the resolution of the respondent- Society dated 6.12.2009. In compliance of the resolution 8 dated 6,12.2009, a conveyance dated 7.12.2009 came to be executed. Some of the tenant-members filed two civil suits praying for direction to the respondent-Society to restrain from taking steps in furtherance of the resolution dated C 6.12.2009 and the consequential conveyance deed dated 7.12.2009. As the interil'J!_ r-elief was not granted to the tenant-members, they moved Notice of Motion, wherein the Single Judge of High Court granted interim relief. Single Judge by a further order d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.