S. M. PASHA & ORS versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 383 · Decided: 17-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
383
   [2023] 2 S.C.R. 383
383
S. M. PASHA & ORS.
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(SLP(C) No. 4428 of 2016)
FEBRUARY 17, 2023
[M. R. SHAH, C.T. RAVIKUMAR AND
SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Art. 136 – Special Leave Petition by
the tenants in occupation of the premises – Respondent no. 5 filed
two IAs for perjury and one IA challenging the termination of the
development agreement – During the pendency of the proceedings,
the development agreement in favour of respondent No. 5 was
terminated by Maharashtra Housing and Area Development
Authority – New development agreement in favour of another
developer has been entered into as the new developer has been
appointed – Petitioner’s case that in view of the changed
circumstances the cause of action did not survive which as such
was against respondent No. 5 , and thus, the SLP be permitted to be
withdrawn – Held: Copy of the fresh development agreement needs
be furnished to the respective tenants by the present management –
If any of the tenants is aggrieved by the terms and conditions of the
fresh development agreement, it would be open for them to challenge
the same before appropriate court/forum – Further, it would also
be open for respondent No. 5 to challenge the termination of the
development agreement – Taking into consideration the subsequent
development and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of
the respective parties in the proceedings to be initiated, the
petitioners be permitted to withdraw the SLP unconditionally – SLP
dismissed as withdrawn.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (C) No.4428 of
2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.2015 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in WP No.6142 of 2014.
With
SLP (C) No… Cc No..4922 of 2016.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
384
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
Rana Mukherjee, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Advs., Ms.
Dharitry Phookan, Ms. Oindrila Sen, Samarth Mohanty, Ms. Lanutula
Karanur, Ms. Bindi Girish Dave, Chiranjiv Sharma, Ms. Neetika Sharma,
Ashok Anand, Advs. for the Petitioners.
Sanjay Jain, ASG, Dhruv Mehta, Neeraj K. Kaul, Gurukrishna
Kumar, K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Advs., Rahul Chitnis, Siddharath
Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Ms. Kirti
Dadheech, Nirnimesh Dube, Chirag M. Shroff, Shailendra P. Singh,
Sachin Patil, Ms. Garima Bajaj, Nikhil Bamal, Puneet Bindra, Harsh
Singhal, Raghav, Abhishek Mishra, Sanchit Garga, Kunal Cheema, Puneet
Singh Bindra, Simran Jeet, Rishabh Gupta, Ms. Aditi Deshpande Parkhi,
Shivam Dube, Nishant Bishnoi,  Ms. Daisy Hannah, Apoorv Shukla,
Ms. Ishita Farsaiya, Puneet Chahar, Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Ayush
Acharjee, Satya Mitra, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment(s)
and order(s) passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ
Petition No. 6142/2014 and Writ Petition No. 5490/2014, the present
Special Leave Petitions (SLP) have been preferred by some of the
tenants in occupation of the premises in question.
2. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on
behalf of the petitioners in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4428/2016
except petitioner No. 4. Shri Rana Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate
has appeared on behalf of the petitioners in Special Leave Petition (C)
No…CC No. 4922/2016. Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned Senior Advocate
has appeared on behalf of the present office bearers. Shri Neeraj Kishan
Kaul, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent
No. 5 in SLP (C) No. 4428/2016 – main contesting respondent. Shri
Venugopal, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of
respondent No. 17, Shri Gurukrishna Kumar, learned Senior Advocate
has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 16 and Shri Sanjay Jain, learned
ASG has appeared on behalf of the State of Maharashtra/MHADA.
3. Two IAs are filed for perjury on behalf of respondent No. 5.
One IA is filed on behalf of respondent No. 5 challenging the termination
of the development agreement which was in its favour.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
385
3.1 Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf
of the petitioners in SLP (C) No. 4428/2016 has prayed to permit the
petitioners (except petitioner No. 4) to withdraw the SLP in view of the
subsequent development. It is submitted that the subsequent developments
are mentioned in IA No. 128881/2019. It is pointed out that during the
pendency of the present proceedings, the development agreement i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.