MARGRET ALMEIDA & ORS., ETC. ETC. versus BOMBAY CATHOLIC COOP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 2 S.C.R. 395 · Decided: 24-02-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 2 S.C.R. 395 
MARGRET ALMEIDA & ORS., ETC. ETC. 
v. 
BOMBAY CATHOLIC COOP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & 
ORS. 
I.A. Nos. 4-6 of 2012 
IN 
Civil Appeal Nos.1175-1177 of 2012 
FEBRUARY 24, 2012 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
M~harashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - s.91 -
Trial court passing interim order of status quo during the 
pendency of the suits in favor of the appellants holding that 
A 
B 
c 
the suits are maintainable - Division Bench of High Court 
held that the suits were not maintainable - On appeal, the 
D 
Supreme Court held that the suits are maintainable and 
directed the parties to maintain status quo to enable the High 
Court to examine the applications· for interim orders -
Interlocutory applications seeking clarification of the order of 
the Supreme Court - Order modified to the effect that the 
E 
matter be considered by the Division Bench of the High Court 
and decide whether the interim order granted by the trial judge 
is sustainable. 
Appellants-plaintiffs filed two suits. The trial judge 
held that the suits were maintainable, as also granted 
F 
interim order in favour of the appellants, directing the 
parties to the suits to maintain status quo during the 
pendency of the suits. The Division B~nch of the High 
Court held that the suits were not maintainable in view 
of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative-Societies 
G 
Act, 1960 and dismissed the suits. Thereafter, appeals 
were filed before the Supreme Court. By order dated 
30.01.2012, the Supreme Court holding that the suits 
were maintainable, set aside the order passed by the 
395 
H 
396 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 2 S.C.R. 
A Division Bench and directed the parties to maintain 
status quo to enable the High Court to examine the 
applications of the appellants for interim orders. 
Therefore, the instant interlocutory applications were filed 
B 
seeking clarification of the order dated 30.1.2012. 
The appellants contended that the judgment of the 
Supreme Court wrongly recorded that the application of 
the plaintiffs-appellants for interim orders is required to 
be considered, whereas, as a matter of fact, the appellants 
were granted interim order by the trial judge and it was 
C the respondents, who challenged the grant of such an 
interim order and, therefore, the judgment of Supreme 
Court, is required to be clarified. 
Allowing the interlocutory applications, the Court 
D 
HELD: The submissions of the appellants are 
accepted. The erroneous conclusion of the Division 
Bench of the High Court cannot operate to the prejudice 
of the appellants-plaintiffs, 
who successfully 
demonstrated before Supreme Court that the order of the 
E Division Bench cannot be sustained. The settled principle 
of law is that the actus curiae neminem gravabit - 'act of 
the court shall not harm anybody'. Therefore, the matter 
should be considered by the Division Bench of the High 
Court and decide whether the interim order granted by 
F the trial judge is sustainable. The judgment of Supreme 
Court dated 30.1.2012 stands modified. [Paras 7 and 8] 
(400-B-C; G-H] 
South Eastern Coal Fields Limited vs. State of M. P. 
(2003) 8 SCC 648 : 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 651 - referred 
G to. 
H 
Case Law Reference: 
2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 651 
Referred to 
Para 7 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : I.A. Nos. 4-6 of 2012. 
MARGRET ALMEIDA & ORS., ETC. v. BOMBAY CATHOLIC 
397 
COOP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. 
IN 
Civil Appeal Nos. 1175-1777 of 2012. 
A 
From the Judgment & Order dated 29.08.2011 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No. 413 of 2011 in 
Notice of Motion No. 172 of 2010 in Suit No. 144 of 2010, 
B 
Appeal No. 489 of 2011 in Notice of Motion No. 172 of 2010 
in Suit No. 144 of 2010 and Appeal No. 573 of 2011 in Notice 
of Motion No. 172 of 2010 in Suit No. 144 of 2010. 
Mukul Rohtagi, Shally Bhasin Maheshwari for the 
Appellants. 
c 
C.A. Sundaram, Shyam Divan, Pratap Venugopal, 
Namrata Sood, Anuj Sarma, Gaurav Nair (for K.J. John & Co.) 
E.C. Agrawala, C.D. Mehta, Pritha Srikumar, Nikhil Nayyar, 
Garima Prashad, P.S. Sudheer, Rishi Maheshwari for the 
Respondents. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHELAMESWAR, J. 1. This is an Application filed with 
the prayer as follows: 
'In the above facts and circumstances, the Applicants I E 
Appellants most respectfully pray that the Hon'ble Court 
may be pleased to: 
(a) 
Clarify the order dated 30.01.2012 passed by this 
Hon'ble Court in Civil appeal No.1175-1177 of 
201

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.