RAZIAAMIRALI SHROFF AND OTHERS versus M/S NISHUVI CORPORATION AND OTHERS

Citation: [2015] 12 S.C.R. 844 · Decided: 09-10-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 12 S.C.R. 844 
A 
RAZIAAMIRALI SHROFF AND OTHERS 
B 
c 
v. 
M/S NISHUVI CORPORATION AND OTHERS 
(Interlocutory Application No.6 of 2012) 
And 
(Interlocutory Application No. 7 OF 2014) 
IN 
(Civil Appeal No.5514 OF 2012) 
with 
(Review Petition (C) No. 2246/2015) 
IN 
o 
Civil Appeal No.5514of2012 
OCTOBER 09, 2015 
[M. Y. EQBAL AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Review- Review petition - Non-grant of ad-interim relief 
E u/s. 9A(2) CPC (Maharashtra Amendment) by this Court-
Review sought to a limited extent- Held: The petitioners had 
taken out Notice of Motion seeking interim reliefs before the 
Single Judge of the High Court and the same was rejected -
In appeal, the. Division Bench upheld the said order since 
F the Notice of Motion was still pending consideration - Thus, 
in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason to pass 
an ad-interim order as prayed for by the applicants-However, 
liberty given to the petitioners to move their Notice of Motion . 
which is pending consideration by the High Court - Thus, 
G the Review petition and the interlocutory application disposed 
of as also no merit in the application and also the prayer 
made for initiating proceedings under the provisions of s. 
195 and 340 . CPC - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 
H 9A(2). 
844 
RAZIA AMIRALI SHROFF v. MIS NISHUVI 
845 
CORPORATION 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : I. A. Nos. 6 of 2012 A 
and 7of2014 in Civil Appeal No. 5514 of2012 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.03.2012 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal (Lodging) No. 
662 of 2011 in Notice of Motion No. 3616 of 2010 in Suit No. B 
2901of2010 
WITH 
R. P. (C) No. 2246/2015 in C.A. No. 5514/2012 
Shekhar Naphde, Pravin H. Parekh, Sr. Advs., Sameer C, 
Parekh, Ms. Shubangi Tuli, Amr Dave, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, 
Vishal Prasad (For M/s. Parekh & Co.), A.dvs. with them, for 
the Appellants. 
C. A. Sundaram, Harin P. Rawal, R. Venkataramani, Sr. 
D 
Advs., Prashant G. Karande, P. M. Palshikar, Anish R. Shah, 
Shivaji M. Jadhav, Yashraj Bundela,Anando Mukherjee,Advs. 
with_ them, for the Respondents. 
The following order of the Court was delivered: 
E 
ORDER 
M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Delay in filing the review petition is 
condoned. 
F 
2. By this review petition, the petitioners are seeking 
limited review of the judgment dated 81hApril, 2015 passed by 
this Court in Civil Appeal No.5514 of2012 and other connected 
matters (reported in (2015) 6 sec 412) to the extent that the 
said judgment has not considered or decided the issue raised G 
in the petitioners' C.A.No.5514 of 2012 regarding the 
petitioners' entitlement to ad-interim relief under Section 9A(2) 
of the Code of Civil Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment) 
during the consideration of preliminary issue under Section 
9A(1) of the Code. 
H 
846 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
3. A separate interlocutory application being I .A. No.6 of 
2012 had been filed praying therein that pending the appeal 
this Court may pass appropriate order to restrain the 
respondents, their agents, servants or representatives from 
carrying out any development or any construction or creating 
B any rights, title or interest in favour of any third party. 
4. Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel 
appearing forthe petitioners, drew our attention to paragraph 
·7 of the review petition and submitted that review petitioners 
C have categorically stated in the petition that they are not seeking 
review of the judgment insofar as it interprets Section 9A(1), 
CPC (Maharashtra Amendment) but are seeking review only 
to the limited extent of non-grant of ad-interim relief under 
Section 9A(2) of CPC (Maharashtra Amendment). Mr. 
D Naphade, learned senior counsel, further submitted that the 
main grievance of the petitioners is that their prayer for ad-
. interim injunction was not considered and decided by this 
Court. 
E 
. 
5. On the other hand, Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior 
counsel appearing for the respondents, drew our attention to 
several orders passed by the High Court and this Court had 
submitted that as a matter of fact Notice of Motion pressed by 
the petitioners was not granted by the High Court and the Notice 
F of Motion is still pending for consideration. The petitioners 
have come only for the ad-interim relief before this Court, which 
cannot be interfered with at this stage. 
6. We have considered the submissions made by the 
G learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also gone 
through th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.