LexTUSHAR HIMATLAL JANI versus JASBIR SINGH VIJAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 414 : 2025 INSC 663 Tushar Himatlal Jani v. Jasbir Singh Vijan & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6636 of 2025) 13 May 2025 [Surya Kant* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in restoring the interim injunction in favour of Respondent No.1 in a modified term during the pendency of the Suit. Headnotes† Interim injunction – Grant of – When not proper – High Court restored the order of the small causes court and granted injunction in favour of Respondent No.1 restraining the appellant from dispossessing him or creating any third-party interest in the disputed premises – Interference with: Held: High Court erred in granting the injunction in favour of Respondent No.1 – Respondent No.1 failed to establish a prima facie case in his favour as the question of tenancy rights claimed by him is pending adjudication before the Small Causes Court – Balance of convenience also tilts in favour of the Appellant as the disputed area is merely 550 square feet out of the total area of 22,000 square feet and the Appellant has already entered into a leave and license agreement with one M/s KMG Global covering a built-up area of 2,200 square feet – Thus, the injunction inordinately impeded the entire redevelopment project for a relatively small disputed portion – Moreover, the Appellant would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is allowed to operate, given that the protracted delay is not only causing substantial financial losses but also affecting the Appellant’s contractual obligations which cannot be adequately compensated at a belated stage – Impugned order set aside. [Paras 16, 17, 19] Interim injunction – Grant of – Pre-requisites for – Discussed. [Para 15] * Author [2025] 6 S.C.R. 415 Tushar Himatlal Jani v. Jasbir Singh Vijan & Ors. List of Keywords Interim injunction; Injunction; Tenancy rights; Tenancy dispute; Disputed premises; Prima facie case; Balance of convenience; Irreparable injury or harm; Not adequately compensable in damages; Small Causes Court; Impleadment; Partnership firm; Family Settlement Agreement; Leave and license agreement; Redevelopment project; Small disputed portion; Surrender of tenancy rights; Equities balanced. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6636 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2024 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in WP No. 763 of 2024 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Amit Dhingra, Anirudh Arunkumar, Rohit Mahajan, M/s. Dua Associates. Advs. for the Respondents: Arunabh Chowdhury, Sr. Adv., Anuroop Chakravarti, Ramit Singh, M S Vishnu Sankar, Mitesh Parekh, Ms. Athira G Nair, M/s. Lawfic, C. George Thomas. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Surya Kant, J. Leave granted. 2. The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the High Court of Bombay (High Court) restraining the Appellant from dispossessing Respondent No. 1 or creating any third-party interest in the disputed premises. 3. The facts leading to the instant appeal are that the Appellant’s father was the owner of a plot admeasuring 22,000 square feet bearing C.T.S. Nos.443(part), 451(part), 452A(part) at Vittalwadi, Ghatala 416 [2025] 6 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Village, Chembur, Mumbai. Out of the said area, the Appellant’s father leased out 11,250 square feet i.e. the subject land, to a partnership firm, namely M/s Silver Chem (India)/Respondent No.2, which was owned by the Vijan family members in 1972. It seems that upon the death of his father, the entire property devolved upon the Appellant. The Appellant terminated the above-mentioned lease agreement vide notice dated 11.02.2008 and, in furtherance thereof, filed Eviction Suit No. 119/148 of 2008 before the Small Causes Court at Bombay (Small Causes Court). 4. Notably, Respondent No.1, who claims to be the legal heir of one of the partners of Respondent No. 2, allegedly runs a business from the suit structure in the name and style of M/s Asset Motors. He, thus, filed an Impleadment Application in the Eviction Suit, contending that he is a necessary and proper party whose rights would be directly affected by the outcome of the proceedings. Respondent No.1 postulated his undivided share in the business of Respondent No. 2 by virtue of a Memorandum of Understanding executed amongst the Vijan family members and further
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.