/2022 INSC 0127/
1
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.  1222  OF 2022
[arising out of SLP (CIVIL) No. 21964 of 2017]
KAMGAR SWA SADAN CO­OPERATIVE 
HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.                   …     APPELLANT
v.
MR. VIJAYKUMAR VITTHALRAO 
SARVADE & ORS.                                   …  RESPONDENTS
J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
Leave granted.
1. The respondent nos.1 to 11 are the original plaintiffs.  The
appellant­Society   is   the   original   defendant   no.1.     The
respondent nos.12 to 25 are the office bearers of the appellant­
Society.   The   respondent   nos.   26   to   29   are   the

2
developers/builders.   The   respondent   nos.30   to   38   are   officials
and/or   the members  of the  High Power   Committee constituted
by the Government of Maharashtra.  The last respondent is the
Project  Consultant and Architect.    It  is not  in  dispute that  the
respondent   nos.1   to   11   (original   plaintiffs)   are   the   members   of
the appellant, a Co­operative Society duly  registered under the
Maharashtra   Co­operative   Societies   Act,   1960   (for   short   “the
said Act of 1960). The dispute is about the redevelopment of the
buildings  occupied  by  the  members  of  the   appellant­Society  in
accordance   with   Regulation   33(7)   of   the   Development   Control
Regulations   for   Greater   Mumbai,   1991   applicable   to   the
Municipal   Corporation   of   Greater   Mumbai.     In   the   Special
General   Body   Meeting   of   the   appellant­Society   held   on   12 th
February   2011,   a   resolution   was   passed   resolving   that   the
tender   submitted   by   the   respondent   no.26   for   the
redevelopment   of   the   property   of   the   appellant­Society   should
be   accepted.     It   is   the   case   of   the   appellant­Society   that   the
resolution was unanimously passed.  

3
2. On 2 nd
 December 2012, a Special General Body Meeting of
the   appellant­Society   was   held   in   which   a   resolution   was
unanimously   passed   appointing   the   respondent   no.27   as   the
developer. The respondent no.27 is stated to be a sister concern
of the respondent no.26.   It is alleged that out of 240 members
of   the   appellant­Society,  165   were   present  in   the   meeting.     An
agreement   for   development   was   accordingly   executed   on   24 th
December   2012   by   the   appellant­Society.     The   agreement
provided for allotment of premises in the redeveloped buildings
free of cost on ownership basis to all the eligible members of the
appellant­Society.   In addition, the respondent no.27 agreed to
provide   a   corpus   of   Rs.5,00,000/­   (Rupees   Five   Lakhs)   per
member to the appellant­Society.   On 27 th
  December 2012, the
Jurisdictional   Assistant   Registrar   of   Co­operative   Societies
accorded   permission   to   the   appellant­Society   to   redevelop   the
property.  On 7 th
 January 2013, the Assistant Registrar granted
further   permission   to   the   appellant­Society   to   redevelop   the
property  by   appointing  the   respondent   no.27  as  the  developer.
The   said   permission   refers   to   a   report   submitted   by   the

4
Authorized Officer which recorded that all the 165 members of
the appellant­Society  who were present in the meeting  held on
2 nd
 December 2012 supported the proposal for redevelopment. 
 
3. The   respondent   nos.2,   3   and   8   along   with   some   other
members   of   the   appellant­Society   filed   a   revision   application
under   Section   154   of   the   said   Act   of   1960   for   challenging   the
orders/permissions   dated   27 th
  December   2012   and   17 th
January 2013 issued by the Assistant Registrar of Co­operative
Societies.   The   revisional   authority   allowed   the   revision
application by the order dated 14 th
 May 2013.  The order of the
revisional authority was challenged by the appellant­Society by
filing  a  Writ  Petition   in  the   Bombay   High  Court.     By   the   order
dated 11 th
  December 2013, the Bombay High Court stayed the
order   of   the   revisional   authority.     The   said   interim   order   of
Bombay High Court was challenged by the respondent nos.2, 3
and   8   before   this   Court.     While   dismissing   the   Special   Leave
Petition,   this   Court   directed   the   Bombay   High   Court   to
expeditiously   decide   the   Writ   Petition.     In   the   pending   Writ
Petition,   the   respondent   no.2   filed   an   interlocutory   application
seeking   an   interim   order   of   status   quo   as   regards   the

5
redevelopment   of   the   property.   The   High   Court   declined   to
grant any interim relief on the said application. 
4. The respondent nos.1 to 11 filed the suit – subject matter
of this Civil Appeal in the City Civil Court at Mumbai.  The suit
was   filed   on   20 th
  February   2016.   The   respondent   nos.1   to   11
contended in the suit that the resolutions passed in the Special
General   Body   Meetings   dated   12 th
  February   2011   and   2 nd
December 2012 were illegal being contrary to provisions of law
and   the   Guidelines   framed   by   the   State   Government   vide   the
Government Resolution dated 3 rd
  January 2009.   A prayer was
made for a decree of declaration that the said resolutions were
illegal,   null   and   void.     Another   prayer   was   made   for   a
declaration that the tender process conducted by the appellant­
Society  for   appointing   a developer   for   redeveloping  its property
was illegal.  A prayer was also made for directing the appellant­
Society   to   conduct   a   fresh   tender   process.     Interim   relief   was
claimed   in   the   suit   for   restraining   the   concerned   defendants
from granting further permissions to the appellant­Society.  The

6
Trial   Court   did   not   grant   ad­interim   relief   to   the   respondent
nos.1 to 11.
5. The present appellant­Society  and some other  defendants
took   out   a   Notice   of   Motion   in   the   suit   contending   that   the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred in view of Section 91
of   the   said   Act   of   1960   and   the   Co­operative   Court   will   have
exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and decide the dispute in the
suit.   It was also alleged that the suit was barred by limitation.
The   said   respondents   invoked   Section   9A   of   the   Code   of   Civil
Procedure,   1908   (for   short   “CPC”)   and   prayed   that   both   the
issues   be   decided   as   preliminary   issues   before   deciding   the
Notice   of   Motion   for   temporary   injunction.     The   prayer   was
contested   by   the   respondent   nos.1   to   11.     Two   preliminary
issues on jurisdiction and bar of limitation were framed by the
Trial Court.   The learned Trial Judge after hearing  the parties,
held that the suit was not barred by Section 91 of the said Act
of 1960 and was maintainable in Civil Court.   He held that the
suit was within limitation.  It is this order which was subjected
to   a   challenge   by   filing   a   Civil   revision   application   by   the

7
appellant­Society.     The   High   Court   dismissed   the   revision
application.   Therefore,   the   present   appeal   has   been   filed   for
challenging the orders of the Trial Court and High Court. 
6. We   have   heard   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the
parties.     Mr.   Shyam   Divan,   the   learned   Senior   Counsel
submitted that in view of the repeal of Section 9A of the CPC as
applicable to the State of Maharashtra and a recent decision of
this   Court   in   the   case   of   Nusli   Neville   Wadia   v.
Ivory   Properties   &   Ors. 1
,   the   issue   of   limitation   could   not   be
decided   as   a   preliminary   issue.     The   learned   Senior   Counsel
submitted   that   the   finding   recorded   by   the   Trial   Court   on   the
issue of  limitation will have to  be set aside. He submitted that
issue   of   limitation   will   have   to   be   decided   after   the   parties
adduce   evidence.     He   would   submit   that   in   any   case,   the
respondent   nos.1   to   11   will   not   be   entitled   to   the   benefit   of
Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short “the Limitation
Act”).   He   also   invited   our   attention   to   additional   documents
placed   on   record   along   with   I.A.No.22493   of   2021   and
1   2020 (6) SCC 557

8
submitted   that   the   buildings   of   the   appellant­Society   are   in
extremely   dilapidated   condition   and   a   notice   to   that   effect   has
been   served   upon   the   appellant­Society   by   the   Municipal
Corporation   of  Greater   Mumbai.     He  submitted   that   except  for
the   respondent   nos.1   to   11,   more   than   150   members   of   the
appellant­Society   have   consented   to   the   redevelopment   of   the
property by the respondent no.27­developer.  He submitted that
it   is   only   because   of   the   objection   raised   by   only   11   members
who   are   the   plaintiffs   that   the   entire   redevelopment   work   has
been stalled.  The learned counsel appearing for the respondent
no.27 supported the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel
appearing   for   the   appellant­Society.     The   learned   counsel
appearing   for   the   original   plaintiffs   urged   that   the   findings
recorded by the Trial Court on both the issues are fully justified
as the original plaintiffs will be entitled to benefit of Section 14
of the Limitation Act and the bar of Section 91 of the said Act of
1960 will not be attracted.
7. After   the   submissions   were   heard,   we   called   upon   the
parties   to   explore   a   possibility   of   an   amicable   solution

9
considering   the   present   status   of   the   buildings.   We   also
permitted the appellant­Society and the respondent no.27 to file
affidavits/undertakings   for   placing   on   record   their   offer   to   the
respondent   nos.1   to   11   and   other   members   of   the   appellant­
Society.     The   respondent   no.27   stated   that   initially,   the   offer
was to allot premises admeasuring 429.88 sq. ft. of carpet area
plus 20.12 sq. ft. of service slab to those eligible members of the
appellant­Society   who   were   occupying   residential   tenements.
The   respondent   no.27   in   view   of   subsequent   enhancement   in
Floor   Space   Index   (FSI),   offered   to   allot   residential   premises
admeasuring   450   sq.   ft.   of   carpet   area   (excluding   the   service
slab) to those eligible members who were occupying residential
premises.  The respondent no.27 offered premises admeasuring
350   sq.   ft.   of   carpet   area   to   those   eligible   members   of   the
appellant­Society   who   were   occupying   commercial   premises.
The   respondent   no.27   also   offered   to   pay   shifting   charges   as
well   as   requisite   monthly   amounts   for   acquiring   temporary
accommodation on rental basis.  The respondent no.27 has also
offered to create a substantial corpus fund for the benefit of the
appellant­Society and its members.   The respondent no.27 has

10
filed   affidavits/undertakings   on   record   containing   their   offer.
Even   the   appellant­Society   has   filed   an   affidavit/undertaking
reiterating   the   offer   made   by   the   respondent   no.27.   The
submission   of   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   original
plaintiffs   is   that   the   respondent   no.27   has   no   experience   of
developing   properties   in   Mumbai.   He   submitted   that
considering the additional FSI which is now made available, the
area   offered   by   the   respondent   no.27   to   the   members   of   the
Society   should   be   much   more   than   what   is   set   out   in   the
affidavits   filed   on   record.     In   short,   though   the   plaintiffs   are
accepting   that   redevelopment   of   buildings   of   the   appellant­
Society   is   necessary,   they   are   not   willing   to   accept   the   offer
made by the appellant­Society  and the respondent no.27.   The
respondent   no.27   filed   an   affidavit   on   17 th
  January   2021   by
which   the   area   of   residential   premises   offered   to   the   members
was increased to 460 sq. ft. of carpet area.
8. Firstly , we are dealing with the submissions on the merits
of the impugned orders. Section 9A was introduced by the Code
of   Civil   Procedure   (Maharashtra   Amendment)   Act,   1977   which

11
provided   that   if   at   the   hearing   of   an   application   for   grant   of
interim relief in a suit, an objection is raised by a defendant to
the   jurisdiction   of   the   Court   to   entertain   the   suit,   the   Court
shall proceed to determine at a hearing of such application, the
issue   of   jurisdiction   as   a   preliminary   issue   before   granting   or
setting aside the order granting interim relief.  Under Section 3
of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure   (Maharashtra   Amendment)
Ordinance, 2018,   Section 9A was deleted.   But it was provided
that an issue of jurisdiction already framed by invoking Section
9A will be treated as an issue framed under Order XIV of CPC.
The said Ordinance was replaced by an Act.   The Act repealing
Section   9A   underwent   an   amendment   by   the   Code   of   Civil
Procedure   (Maharashtra   Amendment)   (Amendment)   Act,   2018
by which Section 3 of the earlier repealing Act was substituted
with   effect   from   27 th
  June   2018   which   provided   that   if   on   the
date   of   deletion   of   Section   9A,   an   issue   under   Section   9A   has
already been framed, the same shall be decided as if Section 9A
was   not   deleted.     The   amendments   referred   above   clearly
envisage  that  if  the  Court  had  ordered  to  decide  an  issue  as  a
preliminary  issue before the date of deletion of Section 9A, the

12
same shall be decided by the Court as a preliminary issue.   In
the present case, the issue was decided prior to 27 th
 June 2018
when Section 9A was repealed.
9. In   the   case   of   Nusli   Wadia   ( supra),   this   Court   held   that
the expression “jurisdiction of the Court to entertain such suit”
used in Section 9A by holding that under Section 9A, the issue
of   jurisdiction   to   entertain   the   suit   has   to   be   decided   without
recording   evidence.     In   paragraphs   49,50,54,56,88   and   89   of
the aforesaid decision, this Court held thus:
“49.   Since the  expression used in Section 9­
A   as   incorporated   in   Maharashtra,   is
“jurisdiction   to   entertain”   that   is   in   a
narrower   sense   and   its   purport   cannot   be
taken   to   be   comprehensive   as   laid   down
in   Foreshore   Coop.   Housing   Society
Ltd.   (supra).
50.   When   we   consider   what   colour
expression   “jurisdiction”   has   in   Section   9­A,
it   is   clearly   in   the   context   of   power   to
entertain,   jurisdiction   takes   colour   from
accompanying   word  “entertain”   i.e.  the   court
should have jurisdiction to receive a case for
consideration  or  to  try  it. In case there is no
jurisdiction, court has no competence to give
the   relief,   but   if   it   has,   it   cannot   give   such
relief for the reason that claim is time­barred
by   limitation   or   is   barred   by   the   principle   of

13
res   judicata   or   by   bar   created   under   any
other law for the time being in force. When a
case is barred by res judicata or limitation, it
is   not   that   the   court   has   no   power   to
entertain it, but it is not possible to grant the
relief. Due to expiry of limitation to file a suit,
extinguishment   of   right   to   property   is
provided   under   Section   27   of   the   Limitation
Act.   When   court   dismisses   a   suit   on   the
ground of limitation, right to property is lost,
to hold so the court must have jurisdiction to
entertain it. The court is enjoined with a duty
under Section 3 of the Limitation Act to take
into   consideration   the   bar   of   limitation   by
itself.  The expression “bar to file a suit under
any   other   law   for   the   time   being   in   force”
includes   the   one   created   by   the   Limitation
Act.   It   cannot   be   said   to   be   included   in   the
expression   “jurisdiction   to   entertain”   suit
used in Section 9­A.   The court has to receive
a   case   for   consideration   and   entertain   it,   to
look   into   the   facts   constituting   limitation   or
bar   created by  any   other  law  to  give relief,  it
has to decide the question on merits; then it
has   the   power   to   dismiss   the   same   on   the
ground   of   limitation   or   such   other   bar
created by any other law.   Thus, the meaning
to   be   given   to   jurisdiction   to   entertain   in
Section   9­A   is   a   narrow   one   as   to
maintainability,   the   competence   of   the   court
to   receive   the   suit   for   adjudication   is   only
covered   under   the   provisions.   The   word
“entertain”   cannot  be   said   to   be   the   inability
to grant relief on merits, but the same relates
to receiving a suit to initiate the very process
for granting relief.”
(underline supplied)

14
“54.   What   is   intended   by   Section   9­A   of   the
Code   of   Civil   Procedure,   1908   (CPC)   is   the
defect   of   jurisdiction.   It   may   be   inter   alia
territorial   or   concerning   the   subject­matter.
The   defect   of   jurisdiction   may   be   due   to
provisions   of   the   law.   In   Raghunath
Das   v.   Gokal   Chand   AIR   1958   SC   827,   the
execution   of   award   of   the   decree   was
dismissed   by   the   Court   on   the   ground   that
decree   was   a   nullity.   The   Court   had   no
jurisdiction   to   pass   a   decree   of   the   partition
of agricultural land. It held that defect of the
jurisdiction   in   the   court   that   passed   decree
became attached to decree itself as dismissal
of   the   suit   was   on   account   of   the   defect   of
jurisdiction.  Thus, in our considered opinion,
it is only the maintainability of the suit before
the court which is covered within the purview
of   Section   9­A   CPC   as   amended   in
Maharashtra .
(underline supplied)
“56.   Within   the   ken   of   provisions   of   Section
9­A, CPC jurisdiction of the court to entertain
the   suit   has   to   be   decided   without   recording
of   evidence.   Recording   of   evidence   is   not
contemplated   even   at   the   stage   of   framing
issue under Order 14 Rule 2 much less it can
be allowed at the stage of grant of injunction,
it   would   be   the   grossest   misuse   of   the
provisions of the law to permit the parties to
adduce   the   evidence,   to   prove   facts   with
respect   to   a   preliminary   issue   of   jurisdiction
to   entertain   a   suit.   In   case   it   is   purely   a
question   of  law,  it  can  be decided  within  the
purview   of   Section   9­A   CPC   as   applicable   in
Maharashtra. The scope of Section 9­A is not
broader   than   Order   14   Rule   2(2)   CPC.   The

15
scope   is   a   somewhat   limited   one.   Two   full­
fledged   trials   by   leading   evidence   are   not
contemplated   in   CPC,   one   of   the  preliminary
issue and another on other issues. Until and
unless the question is purely of law, it cannot
be   decided   as   a   preliminary   issue.   In   our
opinion,   a   mixed   question   of   law   and   fact
cannot   be   decided   as   a   preliminary   issue,
either   under   Section   9­A   or   under   Order   14
Rule 2 CPC. Before or after its amendment of
CPC concerning both provisions, the position
is the same.”
“88.   Given   the   discussion   above,   we   are   of
the   considered   opinion   that   the   jurisdiction
to   entertain   has   different   connotation   from
the jurisdictional error committed in exercise
thereof.   There   is   a   difference   between   the
existence   of   jurisdiction   and   the   exercise   of
jurisdiction. The expression “jurisdiction” has
been   used   in   CPC   at   several   places   in
different   contexts   and   takes   colour   from   the
context   in   which   it   has   been   used.   The
existence   of   jurisdiction   is   reflected   by   the
fact of amenability  of  the  judgment to  attack
in the collateral proceedings. If the court has
an   inherent   lack   of   jurisdiction,   its   decision
is open to attack as a nullity. While deciding
the   issues   of   the   bar   created   by   the   law   of
limitation,   res   judicata,   the   court   must   have
jurisdiction to decide these issues. Under the
provisions   of   Section   9­A   and   Order   14   Rule
2, it is open to decide preliminary issues if it
is   purely   a   question   of   law   not   a   mixed
question   of   law   and   fact   by   recording
evidence.   The   decision   in        Foreshore   Coop.
Housing Society Ltd.        (supra) cannot be said to

16
be   laying   down   the   law   correctly.   We   have
considered   the   decisions   referred   to   therein,
they are in different contexts.   The decision of
the  Full  Bench   of  the  High   Court  of   Bombay
in        Meher   Singh        (supra)   holding   that   under
Section   9­A   the   issue   to   try   a
suit/jurisdiction can be decided by recording
evidence   if   required   and   by   proper
adjudication,   is   overruled.   We   hold   that   the
decision   in   Kamalakar   Eknath
Salunkhe   (supra)   has   been   correctly   decided
and   cannot   be   said   to   be   per   in   curiam ,   as
held   in   Foreshore   Coop.   Housing   Society
Ltd.   (supra).”
(underline supplied)
“89.   Section   2   of   the   Maharashtra   Second
Amendment   Act,   2018   which   provides   that
where   consideration   of   preliminary   issue
framed   under   Section   9­A   is   pending   on   the
date   of   commencement   of   the   CPC,   the   said
issue shall be decided and disposed of by the
court   under   Section   9­A   as   if   the   provision
under Section 9­A has not been deleted, does
not change the legal scenario as to what can
be   decided   as   a   preliminary   issue   under
Section   9­A   CPC,   as   applicable   in
Maharashtra.   The   saving   created   by   the
provision of Section 2 where consideration of
preliminary   issue   framed   under   Section   9­A
is   pending   on   the   date   of   commencement   of
the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure   (Maharashtra
Amendment)   Act,   2018,   can   be   decided   only
if it comes within the parameters as found by
us   on   the   interpretation   of   Section   9­A.   We
reiterate   that   no   issue   can   be   decided   only

17
under   the   guise   of   the   provision   that   it   has
been   framed   under   Section   9­A   and   was
pending   consideration   on   the   date   of
commencement   of   the   (Maharashtra
Amendment)   Act,   2018.   The   reference   is
answered accordingly.”
 
10. In the facts of the case, the appellant ­Society   and certain
other defendants led evidence on the preliminary issue by filing
an   affidavit   in   lieu   of   examination­in­chief   of   one   Mr.   Sanjay
Rajaram   Mohite.   The   original   defendant   nos.16   and   17   were
examined   as   witnesses.     Thus,   in   this   case,   for   deciding   the
issue   of   limitation   evidence   was   required   to   be   recorded.
Hence,   it   was   not   open   for   the   Trial   Court   to   examine   and
decide the issue of the bar of limitation by invoking Section 9A
of CPC. 
11. By   filing   the   present   suit   in   February   2016,   the   original
plaintiffs   have   questioned   the   resolutions   dated   12 th
  February
2011   and   2 nd
  December   2012   passed   in   Special   General
Meetings of the appellant­Society. The plaintiffs also challenged
the   tender   process   conducted   by   the   appellant­Society   way
back   in   the   year   2011.     The   plaintiffs   were   aware   of   both   the

18
resolutions  at  all  relevant  times as  some  of  them   were  present
in   the   meetings.   Some   of   them   filed   aforesaid   revision
application   in   the   year   2013   for   challenging   the   permissions
granted   on   the   basis   of   the   said   resolutions.     The   revision
application   preferred   by   the   respondent   nos.2,   3   and   8   was
allowed   on   14 th
  May   2013.     The   said   order   was   stayed   by   the
High Court on 11 th  
December 2013.   The Special Leave Petition
preferred by the respondent nos.2, 3 and 8 against the order of
stay was dismissed by this Court on 7 th
 March 2014.  
12. The   respondent   nos.1   to   11   waited   till   February   2016   to
file the suit. The said respondents relied upon Section 14 of the
Limitation   Act   to   bring   their   suit   within   limitation.     From   the
bare  facts  pleaded in  the  plaint,   prima  facie,   there is a  serious
doubt   whether   the   benefit   of  Section   14   can   be   granted   to  the
respondent   nos.1   to   11.   However,   the   issue   can   be   finally
decided based on the evidence adduced by the parties.
13. Thus,   in   normal   course,   by   setting   aside   findings   of   the
Trial  Court  and  the  High  Court  on   the  issue of   limitation,  this

19
Court would have directed the Trial Court to decide the issue of
limitation   along   with   the   other   issues.   The   learned   Senior
Counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant ­Society   has   fairly   stated
that this Court need not go into the question of maintainability
of the suit.
14.   Now,   we   will   deal   with   the   offer   made   by   the   appellant ­
Society   as well as by the respondent no.27 and the response of
the   respondent   nos.1   to   11   to   the   said   offer.     Mr.   Shripal
Babulal   Jain,   the   managing   partner   of   the   respondent   no.27
has   filed   an   affidavit/undertaking   on   17 th
  January   2021 .
Paragraphs 4 to 10 of the said affidavit reads thus:­  
“4.   The correct facts in this regard as under:
i) FSI as per Old policy (DCR – 1991) u/s
33(7) + 33(24): FSI.
ii) FSI   as   per   New   Policy   (DCPR   ­   2034)
u/s   33(7)   with   80%   incentive   on   rehab
area: 4.31 FSI.
Here it may also be noted that:
Incentive   FSI   as   per   old   Policy   (DCR­
1991)   was   50%   u/s   33(7)   plus   u/s
33(24)   parking   FSI   by   providing   public
parking which would be roughly 25% of
the   Rehab   built­up   area.   Thus,   total

20
incentive   on   rehab   area   would   be
around 75%.
Incentive   FSI   as   per   New   Policy   (DCPR
­2034)   u/s   33(7)   is   80%   however
parking FSI would not be available as it
is restricted upto 4 FSI.
A   copy   of   the   Architect   certificate   is
annexed   hereto   and   marked   as
Annexure A/1 (Page no.9 to ­). A copy of
the   relevant   portion   of   DCR   1991   is
annexed   hereto   and   marked   as
Annexure­A/2   (Page   No.10   to   13).   A
copy   of   the   relevant   portion   of   DPCR
2034   is   annexed   hereto   and   marked   as
Annexure­A/3   (page   no.14   to   20).     A
copy   of   the   relevant   portion   of   policy
and   circular   dated   8.7.2021   is   annexed
hereto   and   marked   as   Annexure­A/4
(Page No.21 to 31) .
5. The size of new premises: (Residential)
Existing   Area   occupied   by   members:
115 to 180 sq. ft.
Eligible   as   per   Old   Policy   (DCR   1991):
405 sq. ft. carpet area
Offered earlier: 429.88 sq.ft
Eligible as per  new  policy  (DCPR 2034):
425.25 sq. ft. carpet area.
Revised offer by Development: 450 sq.ft.
6 .   I   would   also   like   to   point   out   the   following
further   facts   and   additional   burden   to   be
borne by the developer :

21
i) The   construction   cost   has   increased
upto approx. 50% as compared to in the
year   2013   when   the   development
agreement was undertaken. 
ii) Rs.10.60   crores   approx.   additional   cost
towards   the   addl.   20.12   sq.ft.   carpet
area to 225 Residential members.  Total
4527   sq.ft.   and   construction   cost   at
Rs.23450/­   per   sq.mt.   (cost   with   all
premiums).   Additional   premium   on
additional construction is required to be
paid to Municipal Corporation ­ MCGM.
iii) Rs.15   crores   appx.   towards   GST
charges   on   construction   cost   which
cannot   be   adjusted   against   sales
revenue.   (As   from   1 st
  April   2019   Input
Tax Credit is not allowed for Developers)
GST   is   also   addl.   burden   as   this   was
not contemplated in the year 2013.
iv) There is 450.59 sq.mts. set back on plot
and   thus   only   3142.41   sq.mts.   area
remains   resulting   into   planning
constraints and high density on plot for
rehab   and   sale   area   leading   to
increasing   in   height   of   rehab   building
and thereby construction cost. 
v) It   also   requires   to   be   noted   that
Developer has also to bear the following
additional   costs   over   and   above   the
rehab unit cost: 
a) Each member is being paid Rs.5 lakh
over   and   above   the   rehabilitation

22
unit,   out   of   which   Rs.1.25   lakh   is
already paid in 2013.
(Total corpus fund Rs.12.30 crores of
which   Total   of   Rs.3.07   crores   is
already paid)
b) 2000   sq.ft.   fitness   centre   and
gymnasium   furnished   with   fitness
equipment’s   is   to   be   provided   by   the
developer to the Society.
c) 215   sq.ft.   carpet   area   of   Air
conditioned   Society   office,   is   to   be
provided. 
d) Security   cabin   and   common   toilets
are also to be provided.
e) 3   flats   of   450   sq.ft.   carpet   area   as
against   3   rooms   of   Society   and
godown   of   equivalent   carpet   area   in
lieu of existing godown. 
f) A   deity   place   in   new   rehabilitation
building.
vi) An   amount   of   approximately   Rs.20
crores   is   already   invested   by   the   firm
since   2013,   resulting   into   cost   of
investment and interest costs.
vii) As against which the Society is enjoying
the   fixed   deposit   of   amounts
paid/deposited   and   interest   therein
since 2013.
viii) It is also required to be considered that
the   rehabilitation   building   is   to   be

23
constructed   in   the   front   side   facing   the
Mahadeo Palav Marg on North side and
the sale component building on the rear
side on south side. 
ix) The   interest   of   the   Society   is   also   well
protected,   as   Developer   has   already
provided   a   Security   deposit   of   Rs.5
crores at the time of tender. And as per
New   DCPR   2034   vide   circular   dated
05.03.2021   of   Maharashtra
Government,   a   Developer   is   bound   to
give Security Deposit / Bank Guarantee
of   10%   of   Rehab   Construction   cost   i.e.
approx.12,282   sq.   mtr.   x   30,250
construction cost as per Ready Recknor
of   Mumbai   for   2021­22   total   of
Rs.37,20,00,000/­   x   10%   i.e.
Rs.3,72,00,000/­.
7. I say that as per the revised proposal as
stated   in   Undertaking   dated   7.1.2022,
the   occupiers   are   already   getting   more
area   than   what   is   agreed   in   the
development   agreement   and   also   more
than   what   they   are   eligible   as   per   the
new Policy of DCPR 2034.
8. I   say   that   as   per   the   calculations   and
deliberations   undertaken   by   the
partners   of   the   firm,   if   the   area   of   the
rehab unit is increased from the revised
proposal   of   450   sq.ft.   carpet   area   to
residential   members   and   300   sq.ft.
carpet area to non­residential members,
as   stated   in   the   Undertaking   dated:   7 th
January 2022, the project would not be
financially feasible. 

24
9. I   say   that   as   per   Affidavit   dated
7.1.2022   filed   on   behalf   of   the   Society
more than 60% members having already
given   the   consent   for   new   proposal   of
the   Developer.     The   objections   by
Vijaykumar   VitthalRao   Sarvade   and
other 11 members is not bonafide.
10. I   state   that   MHADA   has   also
issued   NOC   to   respondent   no.27   on
3.11.2021.  A copy of the NOC issued by
MHADA   to   Res.27   is   annexed   hereto
and   marked   as   Annexure   –   A/5   (Page
No.32 to 38).”
15. Mr.   Sanjay   Rajaram   Mohite,   Chairman   of   the   appellant­
Society   on   behalf   of   appellant­Society   has   also   filed   an
affidavit/undertaking   annexing   thereto   a   copy   of   the   revised
proposal dated 9 th
 December 2021 submitted by the respondent
no.27.     He   has   stated   that   the   said   revised   proposal   was
forwarded   to   the   members   of   the   appellant­Society   and   153
occupiers/members   out   of   total   240   occupiers/members   have
already consented to the said proposal in writing.  He has given
undertaking   on   behalf   of   the   Society   that   the   revised   proposal
will remain binding on the appellant­Society.  He has reiterated
that   the   buildings   of   the   Society   are   in   very   dangerous

25
condition   and   may   collapse   any   time.     Undertaking   of   Mr.
Shripal   Babulal   Jain,   the   managing   partner   of   respondent
no.27 in terms of what is stated in the affidavit referred above,
is also placed on record along with IA no.4249 of 2022.
16. In   the   undertaking   of   the   respondent   no.27   given   to   this
Court, the details of the amenities and other benefits agreed to
be   extended   to   the   eligible   members   of   the   appellant­Society
have been specifically set out: 
“ 2.      The main points of the proposals given by
the   deponent   –   Respondent   No.   27   (Developer)
are as under:­
i) The size of new premises:­
A. Residential premises;
As per old policy of DCR 1991, Developer was
bound   to   provide   300   sq.ft.   plus   35%
fungible   area   i.e.   405   sq.ft.   carpet   area   to
each residential eligible member.
Under   the   Development   Agreement   executed
with   Society,   the   Respondent   no.27
(Developer)   has   agreed   to   provide   429.88
sq.ft.   carpet   area   plus   20.12   sq.ft   as   service
slab   to   each   Residential   member   of   the
Society.
In comparison to above two, as Developer, we
have   now   proposed   to   provide   450   sq.ft.
carpet   area   excluding   service   slab,   to   all

26
existing   eligible   Members/Occupants   of
residential   premises,   against   their   existing
carpet area of approx. 115 sq.ft. to 180 sq.ft.
B. Non­residential premises:
So   far   as   Non­Residential   users   are
concerned,   as   per   DCPR   2034   they   are
eligible   for   the   same   carpet   area   which   is
occupied   by   them.     However,   we   propose   to
provide   them   300   sq.ft.   carpet   area   against
their   existing   occupation   of   242.08   sq.ft.   of
carpet area.
A table showing the existing area occupied by
the   Respondent   Nos.:   1   to   11   –   Original
Plaintiffs   and   the   proposed   area   to   be   given
against   the   same   is   forming   part   of   the
proposal dated : 9.12.2021 as Annexure­V.
ii) Transit   Rent/Shifting/Brokerage   for
Temporary alternate accommodation:
A. For residential members:
 It   is   proposed   to   give   transit   rent   of
Rs.15,000/­   per   month   for   first   two   years
of   alternative   accommodation   and
thereafter   Rs.16,500/­   per   month   with
increase   therein   at   10%   every   year   till
possession   of   permanent   alternate   rehab
residential premises is offered.
 It   is   proposed   to   give   one   time   shifting
charges of Rs. 10,000/­ for to and fro.
 It is proposed to give Rs. 30,000/­ towards
brokerage.

27
B. Transit   Rent/Shifting/Brokerage   for
Temporary alternate accommodation for
Non­residential   –   Commercial   use
members.
 It   is   proposed   to   give   Transit   Rent   of
Rs.25,000/­   per   month   with   increase
therein   at   10%   every   year   till   the
possession   of   permanent   alternate   rehab
shop is offered.
 It   is   proposed   to   give   one   time   shifting
charges of Rs. 10,000/­ for to and fro.
 It is proposed to give Rs.50,000/­ towards
brokerage.
iii) Period   for   completion   of
redevelopment project:
It is proposed to complete the redevelopment
project in stipulated time of five years as per
MHADA   circular   dated   5.11.2020.     The   said
period of five years shall commence from the
date on which the vacant possession of entire
property   is   made   available   to   the   developer,
so   as   to   enable   starting   of   actual
redevelopment   on   site.     Further,   the   time
period   as   regards   obtaining   of   necessary
permissions,   and/or   stay   from   any   Court,
Tribunal   or   Authority   and/or   any   natural
calamity   and/or   Force   Majeure   events,
and/or   things   beyond   control   of   the
Developer shall stand excluded. 
iv) Corpus Fund :
(All members ­ Residential/Non­ residential):

28
The   society   being   owner   of   property,   we
propose   to   provide   Rs.5,00,000   (Rupees   Five
Lakhs)   for   each   member   i.e.,   total
Rs.12,30,00,000/­   (Rupees   Twelve   Crores
Thirty Lakhs) to the Society as Corpus Fund.
Against   that   we   have   already   paid
Rs.3,07,50,000   (Rupees   Three   Crore   Seven
Lakhs   Fifty   Thousand)   to   the   Society,   being
Rs.1,25,000/­   (One   Lakh   Twenty­Five
Thousand)   for   each   member   of   Society,   in
2013 on execution of Development agreement
and the balance we have to pay later. 
v) Performance   guarantee/Security
Deposit/Bank Guarantee:
As   per   New   DCPR   2034   vide   circular   dated
05.03.2021   of   Maharashtra   Government,   a
Developer   is   bound   to   give   Security
Deposit/Bank   Guarantee   of   10%   of   Rehab
Construction cost i.e., approx. 12,282 sq.mtr.
x   30,250   construction   cost   as   per   Ready
Recknor   of   Mumbai   for   2021­22   total   of
Rs.37,20,00,000/­   x   10%   i.e.   Rs.
3,72,00,000/­.   We   have   already   paid
Rs.5,00,00,000/­   (Rupees   Five   Crores)   as   an
additional security deposit to Society in 2013
on execution of Development agreement. 
vi) Project Management Consultant
We propose to give Rs.3,00,00,000/­ (Rupees
Three   Crores)   to   society,   out   of   which
Rs.1,50,00,000/­   (Rupees   One   Crore   Fifty
Lakhs) we have already paid to the Society in
2013 and the balance we have to pay later.

29
vii) Parking and height of premises
We   will   fulfill   all   compliance   of   New   DCPR
2034 and as per planning constraint.”
17 . The   learned   Senior   Counsel   for   the   appellant­Society   has
submitted that all the pending proceedings should be disposed
of   so   that   the   work   of   development   can   progress.     The
respondent no.27 has stated that the work of development will
be   completed   as   per   the   no­objection   certificate   issued   by
Mumbai   Building   Repairs   and   Reconstruction   Board   on   3 rd
November 2021.
18. After perusing the affidavits and undertakings, this Court
suggested   to   the   respondent   no.27   whether   the   area   of   the
premises   admeasuring   450   sq.ft.   (carpet)   offered   to   the
members   occupying   residential   premises   and   the   area   of
premises   admeasuring   300   sq.ft.   (carpet)   offered   to   the
members   in   possession   of   non­residential   premises   can   be
increased.     In   response   to   that,   an   affidavit   has   been   filed   by
the   respondent   no.27   stating   that   instead   of   premises
admeasuring 450 sq.ft (carpet area), premises having an area of

30
460 sq.ft. (carpet area) can be offered to those eligible members
who   are   occupying   residential   tenements.     A   copy   of   the
certificate   issued   by   the   Architect   of   the   appellant­Society
recording   that   now   FSI   has   been   increased   from   4.00   to   4.31
has been placed on record.  Thus, respondent no.27 has given a
revised   offer   to   allot   residential   premises   admeasuring   460
sq.ft.   of   carpet   area   though   as   per   old   and   new   policy,   the
entitlement   of   those   who   are   holding   residential   premises   was
to an area of 405 sq.ft and 425.25 sq.ft respectively.
19. The   proposal   of   the   respondent   no.27   takes   care   of
payment   of   reasonable   monthly   rent   to   the   members   for
acquiring temporary alternate accommodation.  It also provides
for   payment   of   a   reasonable   amount   towards   brokerage   which
is   required   to   be   paid   for   acquiring   such   accommodation.     A
provision has been made to  pay  a sum  of  Rs.10,000/­ as one­
time   shifting   charges   to   each   member.     The   respondent   no.27
has   agreed   to   create   a   corpus   fund   for   the   benefit   of   the
appellant­Society   by   contributing   Rs.5,00,000/­   (Rupees   Five
Lakhs)   per   member.   Out   of   the   total   corpus   fund   of

31
Rs.12,30,00,000/­ (Rupees Twelve crores thirty lakhs) agreed to
be   created,   the   respondent   no.27   has   already   paid   a   sum
Rs.3,07,50,000/­   (Rupees   Three   Crore   Seven   Lakhs   Fifty
Thousand)   to   the   appellant­Society.     Apart   from   the   above
provisions,   a   performance   guarantee   has   been   given   by   the
respondent no.27.
20. According  to us, adequate safeguards have been provided
to   the   members   of   the   appellant­Society   in   the   affidavit   and
undertaking   filed   by   the   respondent   no.27.     In   addition,   the
appellant­Society   has   undertaken   to   abide   by   the   terms   and
conditions   proposed   by   the   respondent   no.27.   Moreover,   a
direction   can   be   issued   to   the   appellant­Society   to   incorporate
the   same   terms   and   conditions   as   agreed   by   the   respondent
no.27   in   the   event   the   appellant­Society   is   required   to   engage
another developer in place of the respondent no.27.
  
21 . The response of the respondent nos.1 to 11 to the aforesaid
proposal   is   two­fold.   Firstly,   the   stand   is   that   considering   the
recent   enhancement   in   FSI,   the   area   offered   should   be   more.
Secondly, the development work should be entrusted to another

32
builder   as   the   respondent   no.27   does   not   have   adequate
experience.   In   the   plaint,   one   of   the   prayers   is   that   the
appellant­Society   should   be   directed  to   conduct   a  fresh  tender
process for appointing a developer. 
22.   As noted earlier, this Court would have normally sent back
the   matter   to   the   Trial   Court   to   decide   the   issue   of   limitation.
However,   we   cannot   ignore   the   serious   situation   created   as   a
result   of   the   pendency   of   various   proceedings   from   the   year
2013.     Photographs   produced   along   with   IA   no.11896   of   2018
show the very poor condition of the buildings of the Society.  As
stated   in   I.A.   No.22493   of   2021   filed   by   the   appellant ­Society ,
236 members of the appellant­Society are occupying structures
in   buildings   that   are   in   dilapidated   condition.   Apart   from
photographs of the structures annexed to the said application,
a   copy   of   the   notice   dated   12 th
  July   2019   issued   by   the
Municipal   Corporation   to   the   appellant ­Society   has   been
annexed.     The   notice   refers   to   the   structural   audit   carried   out
by   the   Corporation   in   the   year   2015­2016   which   showed   that
the buildings were falling in the C2­A category meaning thereby

33
that   the   buildings   are   required   to   be   vacated   for   carrying   out
immediate   major   repairs.     The   notice   records   that   there   must
be   further   deterioration   of   the   structures   as   repairs   were   not
carried  out.     Therefore,   the  Municipal   Corporation   called   upon
the   appellant­Society   to   get   a   structural   audit   of   the   buildings
done   within   two   months.    The  Society   was  also   called   upon   to
submit undertakings of the occupants that they will continue to
stay   in   the   buildings   at   their   own   risk   knowing   fully   well   the
probable   danger   of   collapse.     It   is   apparent   that   the   buildings
are   in   a   dilapidated   condition   and   the   members   of   the
appellant ­Society   are   risking   their   own   lives   by   occupying   the
same.     Looking   to   the   manner   in   which   proceedings   are   being
contested,   the   suit   may   not   be   disposed   of   in   near   future.
Moreover,   there   are   bound   to   be   further   appeals.     In   the
meanwhile, if something goes wrong with the buildings, a large
number of families of the members will be on the streets.  Going
by   the  prayers  in   the   plaint,  even   the  respondent   nos.1  to  11­
the   plaintiffs   want   redevelopment   of   the   property,  but  on   their
own   terms   and   through   another   developer.   Moreover,   a   large
majority of members of the appellant ­Society  have accepted the

34
proposal   to   appoint   the   respondent   no.27   as   the   developer.
They   have   also   accepted   the   proposal   submitted   by   the
respondent no.27 to this Court. 
23. Though   a   decision   to   redevelop   the   buildings   was   taken
way back in the year 2011 by the appellant­Society and though
an agreement was executed on 27 th
  December 2012 appointing
a   developer,   no   progress   has   been   made   in   the   development
work   as   a   handful   of   members   of   the   appellant­Society   out   of
236   members   are   opposing   the   project   of   development
undertaken   through   the   respondent   no.27.     The   suit   filed   by
the respondent nos.1 to 11 of 2016 is not likely to be disposed
of in near future.   The issues in the suit including the issue of
limitation   will   have   to   be   decided   after   parties   are   allowed   to
adduce   evidence.     The   enormous   delay   in   disposal   of   the   suit
and appeals arising therefrom will cause prejudice and harm to
the   members   of   the   appellant­Society   as   they   will   have   to
continue to stay in tenements in the buildings which are in very
bad shape. This is not a usual dispute where the members are
not   ad   idem   on   the   issue   of   redevelopment.     In   this   case,

35
practically   all   the   members   of   the   appellant­Society   want
redevelopment   by   demolishing   old   buildings.     Here   is   a   case
where   a   large   number   of   members   of   the   appellant­Society
continue to  occupy  dilapidated buildings by  risking   their  lives.
Their families are being exposed to imminent danger. Therefore,
this   Court   cannot   countenance   a   situation   that   will   delay   the
development   work   for   an   inordinately   long   time   due   to   the
objection   by   a   handful   of   members.   The   majority   of   members
are   supporting   the   redevelopment   by   the   respondent   no.27   on
the terms offered by the said respondent.   Therefore, in view of
the peculiar facts of the case and for protecting families of more
than   200   members   of   the   appellant­Society,   we   are   satisfied
that this is a fit case to exercise the plenary jurisdiction of this
Court   under   Article   142   of   the   Constitution   of   India   to   do
complete   justice   between   the   parties   by   giving   quietus   to   the
pending disputes.  It is in the larger interests of more than 200
members   of   the   appellant­Society   including   the   respondent
nos.1 to 11 that the disputes are put to an end and the work of
redevelopment starts at the earliest.

36
24. To give finality and quietus to the controversy in the larger
interests   of   members   of   the   appellant­Society,   considering   the
objection   of   the   respondent   nos.1   to   11   to   the   area   offered   by
the   respondent   no.27,   we   propose   to   direct   the   respondent
no.27   to  provide   residential   tenements   having   a   carpet  area   of
475   sq.   ft.   (exclusive   of   service   slab)   to   the   eligible   members
occupying   residential   premises.   The   respondent   no.27   has
already agreed to increase the area from 450 sq.ft to 460 sq.ft.
In our view, this marginal increase in the area of the premises
to   be   allotted   to   members   having   residential   tenements   is
necessary as FSI has been substantially increased.
25 .  The undertakings of the respondent no.27 sufficiently take
care   of   the   apprehensions   expressed   by   the   respondent   nos.1
to 11.  The respondent no.27 has agreed to complete the project
within five years from  the date on which it receives possession
of   the   buildings   proposed   to   be   redeveloped.     To   secure   the
interest of the members, the respondent no.27 can be directed
to pay a transit rent for the period of five years in advance to all

37
the members at the time of entering into individual agreements
with   all   the   members.   The   requirement   of   executing   such
individual   agreements   with   members   has   been   noted   in   the
resolution   dated   2 nd
  December   2012   passed   in   the   Special
General  Meeting  of the appellant­Society.   Time of two months
can   be   granted   to   the   members   to   vacate   their   respective
tenements   and   hand   over   possession   thereof   the   appellant­
Society from the date on which they receive transit rent for five
years as well  as shifting   and brokerage charges as provided in
the   undertaking   of   the   respondent   no.27.   Moreover,   the
appellant­Society   be   directed   to   ensure   that   the   successor   of
the   respondent   no.27   shall   be   bound   by   all   the   undertakings,
in   the   event,   the   appellant­Society   is   required   to   replace   the
developers.
26. Unless   all   the   pending   cases   are   disposed   of,   quietus
cannot be given to the dispute. Hence, by exercising the powers
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the suit filed by
the respondent nos.1 to 11 will have to be disposed of and the
criminal   complaint   filed   by   them   needs   to   be   quashed.   The

38
respondent   nos.30   to   38   are   various   authorities/officers.   In
view   of   this   Order,   they   shall   not   entertain   any   complaints
made   by   the   respondent   nos.1   to   11   in   connection   with   the
redevelopment   project.     In   the   event,   the   respondent   no.27   or
the   appellant­Society   commit   any   breach   of   the   undertakings
given to this Court or any breach of directions of this Court, the
respondent   nos.1   to   11   can   always   move   the   Court   for
appropriate   relief   for   enforcement   of   the   undertakings   and
directions  issued by   this Court.    If  the respondent  nos.1 to 11
commit   any   breach   of   the   directions   contained   in   this   Order,
the   appellant   and/or   the   respondent   no.27   can   adopt
appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the directions.
27. We,   therefore,   dispose   of   this   appeal   by   passing   the
following order:
(i) We   take   on   record   the   undertakings   of   the
respondent no.27 given through Mr. Shripal Babulal
Jain,   its   managing   partner   which   is   of   7 th
  January
2021   as   well   as   the   assurances   contained   in   his
affidavit dated 17 th
 January 2021 and Undertaking of

39
the   appellant­Society   in   affidavit   dated   7 th
  January
2022 of Mr. Sanjay Rajaram Mohite;
(ii) The   undertakings   of   the   appellant­Society   and   the
respondent   no.27   are   taken   on   record   as   aforesaid
with   a   modification   that   the   area   of   residential
premises to be provided to all eligible members of the
appellant­Society   occupying   residential   premises
shall be 475 sq.ft. of carpet area (exclusive of service
slab); 
(iii) In   the   event,   the   appellant­Society   is   required   to
replace   the   present   developer,   while   entering   into   a
development   agreement   with   the   new   developer,   a
clause   shall   be   added   therein   incorporating   an
undertaking of the new developer that he shall abide
by the directions contained in this Order.
(iv) The   respondent   no.27   shall   offer  transit   rent  for   the
period   of   five   years,   shifting   charges   and   brokerage
as   mentioned   in   paragraph   2(ii)   (A   and   B)   of   its
undertaking quoted in paragraph 16 above to all the
eligible   members   within   maximum   period   of   two

40
months   from   today.     At   the   time   of   payment   of   the
said amounts to the members, the respondent no.27
and the appellant­Society shall enter into agreements
with individual members for allotment of premises in
the   new   buildings   free   of   cost.   Within   a   maximum
period   of   two   months   from   the   receipt   of   the
aforesaid amounts, the respondent nos.1 to 11 shall
hand   over   the   vacant   possession   of   the   premises   in
their   respective   possession   to   the   appellant­Society
and/or the respondent no.27;
(v) The   entire   project   shall   be   completed   by   the
respondent   no.27   as   expeditiously   as   possible.   The
outer  limit  for  completion  of  the project shall  be five
years from the date on which the respondent no.27 is
placed   in   possession   of   all   the   tenements   in   the
buildings proposed to be demolished. The possession
of   the   premises   in   reconstructed   building   shall   be
handed   over   to   the  eligible   members  within   the  said
outer limit of five years;

41
(vi) Long   Cause   Suit   no.575   of   2016   filed   by   the
respondent   nos.1   to   11   in   the   City   Civil   Court   at
Mumbai shall stand disposed of in view of this Order;
(vii) Complaint   No.1501270/Misc./2017   filed   by   the
respondent   nos.1   to   11   pending   before   the   Court   of
the   learned   15 th
  Metropolitan   Magistrate,   Mazgaon,
Mumbai shall stand quashed;
(viii) If   the   appellant­Society   or   the   respondent   no.27   or
directions issued by this Order or undertakings given
by   them,   the   respondent   nos.1   to   11   are   free   to
initiate   appropriate   proceedings   in   accordance   with
law for  enforcing  the  directions  issued by  this Court
including   the   undertakings.   Similarly,   on   the   failure
of the respondent nos.1 to 11 or any of them to abide
by   the   directions   issued   in   terms   of   this   Order,   the
appellant­Society   and/or   the   respondent   no.27   are
free to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance
with law. 

42
28.       The   Civil   Appeal   stand   disposed   of   with   the   above
directions.     All   the   pending   applications,   if   any,   also   stand
disposed of.            
…………..…………………J
(AJAY RASTOGI)
…………..…………………J
(ABHAY S. OKA)
New Delhi;
February 08, 2022.