Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: Order in N/M No.4918 of 2019 1
MHCC010134502019 Presented on : 23/12/2019
Registered on : 23/12/2019
Decided on : 14/03/2022
Duration : Y M D
02 02 19
BEFORE THE CITY CIVIL COURT, MUMBAI
( Court No.14 )
(Presided Over by S. U. Hake)
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4918 OF 2019
IN
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.916 OF 2021
1. Mrs. Mehrunnisa Qasim Shaikh.
2. Mr. Aslam Qasim Shaikh.
3. Mr. Mustaqeem Qasim Shaikh.
No.1 to 3 Adult, Muslim, Indian
inhabitant through their CA No.4
residing at Flat No.412, 'F' Wing,
J.J.Colony, K.C.Marg, Near MTNL,
Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050.
4. Ms. Sumaiyya Qasim Shaikh @
Mrs. Sumaiyya Arif Patel.
Adult, Muslim, Indian Inhabitant,
Occn.: Housemaker,
Flat No.303, 'C' Wing, Maklai Park,
Bazar Road, Bandra (W),
Mumbai 400 050. ....Plaintiffs
Versus
1. M/s. S. Savla Constructions Private Ltd.
having registered office at
C101, Innova Marathon Nexgen,
Off. G.K. Marg,
Opp. Peninsula Corporate Park,
Lower Parel (W), Mumbai 400 013.
2. Mr. Shailesh Mulchand Savla.
-- 1 of 17 --
Order in N/M No.4918 of 2019 2
3. Mr. Paresh Mulchand Savla.
Both Directors of No.1
Having address at
C101, Innova Marathon Nexgen,
Off G.K.Marg,
Opp. Peninsula Corporate Park,
Lower Parel (W), Mumbai 400 013.
4. M/s.Balaji Corporation Private Limited.
Having registered office at
Plot No.1, Sewree Wadala Estate,
C.S.No.1/58 of Dadar Naigaon,
Katrak Road, Wadala,
Mumbai 400 031.
5. Mr. Pankaj Dhanji Goshar.
6. Mr. Sukanraj Sagarmal Bohra.
Both No.5 & 6 Director of No.4
having office at
Plot No.1, Sewree Wadala Estate,
C.S.No.1/58 of Dadar Naigaon,
Katrak Road, Wadala,
Mumbai 400 031. ....Defendants.
Ld. Advocate Pawan Pandey for plaintiffs.
Ld. Advocate Shetty for defendant Nos.1 to 3.
Ld. Advocate Aseem Naphade for defendant Nos.4 and 5.
Suit proceeded exparte against defendant No.6.
ORAL ORDER
(Dated this 14th day of March, 2022)
This notice of motion is taken out by plaintiffs praying for
monthly compensation of Rs.10,000/ from defendants and to restrain
defendants from alienating property bearing survey No.2158 Cadastral
Survey No.1/583, situated at Dadar, Naigaum Division in Wadala,
Private Market, Katrak Road, Wadala (W), Mumbai 400 031
(Hereinafter referred as 'Suit Property').
-- 2 of 17 --
Order in N/M No.4918 of 2019 3
Briefly stated, plaintiffs' case, is as under :
2. One Qasim Shaikh was monthly tenant of Ali Haji Hussain
and others. Plaintiffs are the legal heirs of said Qasim Shaikh. After
redevelopment of the suit property, Shop No.90 admeasuring 10 x 10
sq.ft. carpet area was alloted to said Qasim Shaikh (Hereinafter referred
as ‘Suit Shop’). In the year 2006, defendant No.1 approached Qasim
Shaikh and requested him to hand over suit shop for putting columns of
the proposed residential tower abutting to the suit shop. Accordingly,
defendant No.1 executed an agreement dated 18.12.2006 in favour of
Qasim Shaikh. Defendant No.1 promised to reconstruct the shop within
six months. Defendant No.1 agreed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/ as
monthly compensation. However, deft no.1 could not complete the
work within 6 months.
3. Defendant No.1 paid monthly compensation as agreed to
Qasim Shaikh and same was enhanced by 10% every year. Later on,
defendant No. 4 to 6 joined the project. Defendant No.4 started paying
monthly compensation of Rs.8,000/ to said Qasim Shaikh. However,
since September 2017, defendant No. 4 stopped making payment of
monthly compensation to Qasim Shaikh on the pretext that defendants
would hand over the possession of the suit shop within a short span of
time. Qasim Shaikh passed away on 06.02.2018. Defendants have
completed construction work of building. Plaintiffs issued notice dated
16.07.2018 asking defendants to hand over possession of the suit shop
as per the agreement dated 18.12.2006. However, defendants failed to
hand over the possession of the suit shop. Plaintiffs have primafacie
case. Balance of convenience also lies with plaintiffs. Plaintiffs would
suffer irreparable loss, if reliefs as prayed for, are not granted. By
making all these submissions, plaintiffs prayed to direct defendants to
-- 3 of 17 --
Order in N/M No.4918 of 2019 4
pay monthly compensation of Rs.10,000/. Plaintiffs also prayed for an
order of injunction restraining the defendants from creating third party
interest in the suit property.
4. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 failed to file reply to the notice of
motion. However, they have filed written statement and surrejoinder
to plaintiffs rejoinder. It is submitted on behalf of defendant Nos.1 to
3 that suit is not filed within limitation. Suit is not properly valued.
Defendant no.2 does not recollect signing of agreement in favour of
Qasim Shaikh. Alleged agreement is forged. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 have
specifically denied tenancy rights of Qasim Shaikh. It is submitted that
in the year 2006, Qasim Shaikh approached defendant No.1 claiming
tenancy rights. Qasim Shaikh made said false claim in order to stall
entire redevelopment of the suit property. Defendant No.2 agreed to
pay Qasim Shaikh certain amount in monthly installments. There was
no agreement to provide alternate accommodation.
5. Defendant No.1 conveyed all rights in the suit property to
defendant No.4. Now, defendant No.4 is in possession of suit property.
At the time of assignment, defendant No.4 was informed about the
requirement of making monthly installments to Qasim Shaikh.
Defendant Nos.1 to 3 were not aware that Qasim Shaikh was a monthly
tenant of Ali Haji Hussain and he was provided with alternate shop ad
measuring 100 square feet. Original owner M.C.G.M. assigned
development rights of the suit property to defendant No.1 in or about
April 2005. Defendant No.1 conveyed entire rights in respect of suit
property to defendant No.4 in the year 2009. By making all these
submissions, defendant Nos.1 to 3 prayed to reject the Notice of Motion.
-- 4 of 17 --
Order in N/M No.4918 of 2019 5
6. Defendant Nos.4 and 5, by filing their reply, strongly
resisted the Notice of Motion. It is submitted that defendant No. 1
transferred all the rights in the suit property to defendant No.4 by the
deed of assignment. They did not have knowledge about the agreement
dated 18.12.2006. They came to know about the said agreement after
filing of the suit. Defendant Nos.4 to 5 submit that agreement dated
18.12.2006 is not registered. Defendant No.1 informed them that one
Qasim Shaikh has falsely asserted tenancy rights in respect of a unit in
suit property with malafide intention to stall the entire redevelopment
of suit property. Defendant No.4, without admitting tenancy rights of
Qasim Shaikh, arrived at an oral agreement to pay certain amount in
monthly installments. Said amount was paid to Qasim Shaikh for not
making any claim in the suit property.
7. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 further submit that plaintiffs have
not filed documents to show that Qasim Shaikh was monthly tenant of
Ali Haji Hussain. Suit is not filed within limitation. In spite of repeated
letters, advocate for plaintiffs failed to show inspection of original
agreement dated 18.12.2006. Said agreement is forged. Defendant
Nos.1 to 3 informed defendant No.4 about oral agreement with Qasim
Shaikh. After assignment of all the rights and liabilities in the suit
property, defendant No.4 continued making such payment to Qasim
Shaikh without verifying any document and without admitting any right
or claim of Qasim Shaikh. They are not liable to pay any amount to
Qasim Shaikh or legal heirs of Qasim Shaikh. Payment made by
defendant No.4 does not confer any right upon Qasim Shaikh or upon
plaintiffs. By making all these submissions, defendant Nos.4 and 5
prayed to reject the notice of motion.
-- 5 of 17 --
Order in N/M No.4918 of 2019 6
8. Heard both sides. Following points arise for determination,
findings thereon for the reasons to follow, are as under :
Sr. No. POINTS FINDINGS
1. Do plaintiffs establish prima facie case ? Yes
2. Whether balance of convenience lies
with plaintiffs ?
Yes
3. Whether plaintiffs would suffer
irreparable loss if interim relief is
refused ?
Yes
4. What order ? Notice of Motion is
partly allowed as per
final order.
REASONS
POINT NOS.1 TO 3:
9. In support of notice of motion, Learned Counsel for plaintiffs
made following submissions :
a) Qasim Shaikh was monthly tenant of Ali Haji Hussain
and others in respect of Gala No.29 situated in suit property.
Said property was redeveloped and shop No.90 was given to
Qasim Shaikh. Plaintiffs are legal heirs of Qasim Shaikh.
b) Plaintiffs have filed on record rent receipts to show that
Qasim Shiakh was monthly tenant of Gala No.29. Plaintiffs
have filed on record electricity bills and inspection reports
carried out by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. These
documents show that Qasim Shaikh was doing business in Gala
no.29.
c) Defendant Nos.1 to 3 approached plaintiffs in the year
2006. Defendant No.2 requested Qasim Shaikh to hand over
shop No.90 for the purpose of putting column of the proposed
residential tower abutting to the suit shop. Accordingly, parties
-- 6 of 17 --
Order in N/M No.4918 of 2019 7
executed an agreement dated 18.12.2006.
d) As per agreement dated 18.12.2006, defendant No. 1
paid monthly compensation amount by cheques to Qasim
Shaikh. Later on, defendant Nos.1 to 3 assigned their rights in
suit property to defendant Nos.4 to 6. Defendant No.4 to 6
also paid monthly compensation to the Qasim Shaikh.
Defendant No.4 started paying monthly compensation of
Rs.8,000/ to Qasim Shaikh. Plaintiffs have filed on record
bank account statement of Qasim Shaikh to show that
defendants paid monthly compensation to Qasim Shaikh from
the year 2006 to 2017.
e) Defendant No.4 stopped making payment of monthly
compensation to Qasim Shaikh on the pretext that defendants
would hand over the possession of the suit shop shortly. Qasim
Shaikh passed away on 06.02.2018. Construction of suit shop
is completed. But, defendants are not giving possession of the
suit shop to plaintiffs as per agreement dated 18.12.2006.
f) Defendant Nos.4 to 6 claims that defendant Nos. 1 to 3
have assigned rights in suit property to them. However, they
have not placed on record assignment deed.
g) Defendants claimed that they have paid certain amount
to Qasim Shaikh in pursuance to oral agreement. However,
their pleadings regarding oral agreement with Qasim Shaikh
are vague. They have not pleaded particulars of oral
agreement with Qasim Shaikh.
h) Plaintiffs have primafacie case. Balance of convenience
also lies in favour of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs would suffer
irreparable loss, if defendants alienate the suit property. By
making these submissions, learned counsel for plaintiffs prayed
-- 7 of 17 --
Order in N/M No.4918 of 2019 8
to direct defendants to pay monthly compensation of
Rs.10,000/ to plaintiffs. He also prayed to issue order of
injunction restraining defendants from creating third party
interest in the suit property.
10. Learned Counsel appearing for defendant Nos.1 to 3
contravened above arguments with following submissions :
a) Defendants have sought inspection of documents from
plaintiffs after filing of the suit. But, plaintiffs avoided giving
of inspection of documents. Plaintiffs have not given inspection
of original agreement dated 18.12.2006. Defendants are
coming with the specific case that said agreement is forged.
Non production of original agreement dated 18.12.2006
cements defendants’ contention that said agreement is forged
one.
b) Plaintiffs claim that they have filed report to police
station regarding loss of document. However, said report
appears to have been filed by plaintiffs after getting copies of
written statement filed by defendants. Therefore, plaintiff’s
contention regarding loss of original agreement dated
18.12.2006 cannot be accepted.
c) If document dated 18.12.2006 is considered as a “Leave
and License” agreement, it requires registration as per section
55 of The Maharashtra Rent Control Act. Document dated
18.12.2006 is not registered and therefore, it cannot be used as
per Section 49 of The Indian Registration Act .
d) As per Article 5 (ga) of The Bombay Stamp Act,
development agreement requires stamp duty as that of
conveyance. If agreement dated 18.12.2006 is considered as a
-- 8 of 17 --
Order in N/M No.4918 of 2019 9
development agreement, stamp duty in accordance with The
Bombay Stamp Act is not paid. Therefore, said document
cannot be admitted in evidence as per Section 34 of the
Bombay Stamp Act.
e) Plaintiffs relied upon inspection reports of Municipal
Corporation. From these inspection reports, no inference
regarding tenancy rights of Qasim Shaikh can be drawn.
f) The tenancy receipts issued for different periods bear
the numbers serially. Therefore, tenancy receipts filed on
record cannot be relied upon.
11. Learned Counsel for defendant Nos.4 and 5 made following
submissions :
a) Plaintiffs are seeking specific performance of agreement
dated 18.12.2006. As per the terms of the agreement dated
18.12.2006, defendant No.1 was required to hand over the
possession of the suit shop to Qasim Shaikh within six months
from the date of agreement. Thus, as per said agreement,
defendant No.1 was required to complete construction work of
suit shop on or before 17.06.2007.
b) As per Ipart of Article 54 of the Indian Limitation Act, 3
years period would begin to run from the date fixed for the
performance. Here, the date fixed for performance was
17.06.2007. Therefore, period of limitation of 3 years would
begin to run from 17.06.2007. Suit is not filed within limitation
as provided in 1st limb of Article 54.
c) Plaintiffs are seeking specific performance of agreement
against the defendant Nos.4 and 5. There is no privity of contract
between plaintiffs and defendant Nos.4 and 5. Therefore,
-- 9 of 17 --
Order in N/M No.4918 of 2019 10
plaintiffs cannot seek enforcement of specific performance of
contract as against defendant Nos.4 and 5.
d) Defendants are coming with the specific case that
agreement dated 18.12.2006 is forged. Plaintiffs failed to give
inspection of original document to defendants. Plaintiffs failed
to refer agreement dated 18.12.2006 in their notice dated
16.07.2018. Thus, plaintiffs have improved their case on the
basis of forged agreement.
e) Defendants have specifically denied the execution of
agreement dated 18.12.2006. Burden is upon plaintiffs to
prove execution of agreement dated 18.12.2006 and for that
purpose, trial is necessary. Therefore, at this stage, plaintiffs
are not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the notice of motion.
By making all these submissions, Learned Counsel for
defendant Nos.4 and 5 prayed to reject the notice of motion.
12. Considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the both
sides. Plaintiffs are claiming that they are legal representatives of
Qasim Shaikh. Plaintiffs have filed on record tenancy receipts to show
that said Qasim Shaikh was tenant of Ali Haji Hussain and others.
Plaintiffs have also filed on record Shop and Establishment License,
inspection reports of Mumbai Municipal Corporation to buttress their
contention that Qasim Shaikh was monthly tenant of Ali Haji Hussain
and others. Primafacie , material on record shows that said Qasim
Shaikh was monthly tenant of Ali Haji Hussain and others.
13. Plaintiffs claim that defendant Nos.1 to 3 have executed an
agreement dated 18.12.2006 in favour of Qasim Shaikh and in
pursuance of said agreement, defendant Nos.1 to 3 have taken the
-- 10 of 17 --
Order in N/M No.4918 of 2019 11
possession of the suit shop. Defendants have denied execution of said
agreement.
14. Plaintiffs failed to produce agreement dated 18.12.2006 for
inspection on demand by defendants. Plaintiffs contended that said
document is lost. Defendants submitted that nature of the document is
of a ‘Leave and License Agreement’ and therefore, it is required to be
registered as per Section 55 of The Maharashtra Rent Control Act.
Defendant Nos.1 to 3 alleged to have executed said agreement in favour
of Qasim Shaikh on 18.12.2006. By virtue of said agreement,
defendant Nos.1 to 3 have taken possession of the shop No.90 for
limited purpose of putting the column. Therefore, said agreement
cannot be construed as an agreement of “Leave and License”.
15. Defendants submitted that agreement dated 18.12.2006 is
required to be registered as per section 17 of the Registration Act and
therefore, it cannot be used to claim right in the immovable property as
per Section 49 of The Registration Act. Section 49 of the Registration
Act also provides an exception. Proviso to Section 49 of the
Registration Act makes the provision that an unregistered document
affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of
Property Act to be registered, may be received as evidence of a contract
in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief
Act or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be
effected by the registered instrument. Thus, as per proviso to Section
49 of the Indian Registration Act, an unregistered agreement may be
received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance.
Plaintiffs are seeking specific performance of contract dated 18.12.2006
and unregistered contract may be taken into consideration as evidence
-- 11 of 17 --
Order in N/M No.4918 of 2019 12
of a contract.
16. Defendants contended that agreement dated 18.12.2006 is
not sufficiently stamped. Section 34 of The Bombay Stamp Act provides
that no instrument chargeable with duties shall be admitted in the
evidence unless such instrument is duly stamped. However, the
objection regarding non payment of stamp duty need not be considered
while deciding interim application. Said objection can be taken into
consideration at the time of admitting the document in evidence.
17. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 vehemently contended that suit is
not filed within limitation as per the first limb of Article 54 of the Indian
Limitation Act. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 relied upon following judicial
pronouncements :
a) K. Krishnan Nair & 3 Others V/s. V. K. Parameshwaran
Pillai and 23 others in Appeal No. 348 of 1982 and Transfer Appeal
No. 765 of 1985 of Hon'ble Madras High Court. In this case, Hon’ble
Madras High Court held,
“As we have held that the parties fixed the time for purchase at
one month from the date of the final order in M.C. No.7 of
1964, the limitation begins on the expiry of one month from
30.07.1964. Art.54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribed a
period of three years for a suit for specific performance of a
contract from the date fixed for the performance or if no such
date is fixed, when the plaintiff has noticed that performance is
refused. In the present case, the date is fixed by the parties.
Though actual date is not fixed, the parties have clearly
mentioned the time within which the contract should be
-- 12 of 17 --
Order in N/M No.4918 of 2019 13
performed. It has been held in Muniswami Goundar v.
Shamana Gouda (1956 II MLJ 163) that the words, “date
fixed” are comprehensive to include a date which can be
ascertained with reference to an event certain to happen. In the
present case, certain event is fixed and that is the final order in
M.C. No.7 of 1964 and that happened on 30.7.64. Hence, the
suit should have been filed within three years from 30.8.1964.
The suit having been filed only on 18.7.1979 is clearly barred
by limitation.”
b) Madina Begum and Another V/s. Shiv Murti Prasad
Pandey and Others, (2016) 15 SCC 322. In this case, Hon’ble Supreme
Court pleased to hold that the expression “date fixed for the
performance” is a crystallized notion. When a date is fixed, it means
there is a definite date fixed for doing a particular act. The expression
“date” is definitely suggestive of a specified date in the calender.
18. As argued by ld. counsel for defendant Nos.4 and 5, Article
54 of the Limitation Act has two parts. According to the first part, the
period of three years is required to be calculated from the date fixed for
the performance. Defendants contended that six months period was
specified in the agreement and said period elapsed on 17.06.2017.
19. Plaintiffs are coming with the specific case that defendants
paid monthly compensation as per agreement dated 18.12.2006 to
Qasim Shaikh till September 2017. Defendants have disputed
execution of agreement. But, they have not disputed the payment of
certain monthly amount to Qasim Shaikh. Qasim Shaikh received
monthly compensation from the defendants till September 2017. Thus,
from the material placed before the Court, primafacie, it can be
-- 13 of 17 --
Order in N/M No.4918 of 2019 14
inferred that time for performance of agreement was extended by the
parties till September 2017. Defendants made payment from time to
time in pursuance to the agreement dated 18.12.2006. Therefore, it
can be primafacie construed that time was not the essence of the
contract dated 18.12.2006 and therefore, plaintiffs case would not be
covered under first part of Article 54 and it would be covered under
second part of Article 54 in which the period of limitation would begin
to run from date when plaintiffs had noticed that performance is
refused. Thus, at this stage, it cannot be held that suit is not filed
within limitation.
20. Plaintiffs are coming with the specific case that defendant
Nos. 1 to 3 initially paid monthly compensation amount to Qasim
Shaikh in pursuance to agreement dated 18.12.2006 and after assigning
rights in the suit properties, defendant Nos.4 to 6 made payment of
monthly compensation to Qasim Shaikh. Defendants have not denied
payment of monthly amount to Qasim Shaikh. They have not denied
that they are in possession of suit property which includes the suit shop.
It is their contention that, without admitting tenancy rights of Qasim
Shaikh, they have agreed to pay certain amount in monthly installments
to Qasim Shaikh for not making any claim against the suit property.
However, the avernments made by the defendant Nos.1 to 5 regarding
oral agreement with Qasim Shaikh are vague. They have not stated as
to for which period, they agreed to pay monthly installments to Qasim
Shaikh. Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are the builders and developers of the
suit property. No builder and developer would pay certain monthly
amount to any stranger for such a long period i.e. from 2006 to 2017
without ascertaining rights of such stranger to the property.
-- 14 of 17 --
Order in N/M No.4918 of 2019 15
21. Plaintiffs are claiming monthly amount of Rs.10,000/ as a
compensation. Record shows that defendants paid an amount of
Rs.8,000/ per month to the Qasim Shaikh till the year 2017. Although,
defendants denied execution of agreement dated 18.12.2006, but, they
have not denied payment made to Qasim Shaikh. Therefore,
considering all these aspects, to the extent of getting monthly
compensation amount of Rs. 8,000/, plaintiffs have primafacie case.
Plaintiffs have raised a fair question that defendants by executing an
agreement dated 18.12.2006 agreed to hand over suit shop and in the
meantime, they agreed to pay monthly compensation. Plaintiffs have
raised a fair question which requires trial. Thus, plaintiffs have
established primafacie case to the extent of getting monthly
compensation of Rs.8,000/ from defendants.
22. Plaintiffs have placed on record material to show that
defendants paid monthly compensation of Rs.8,000/ to Qasim Shaikh
till the year 2017. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 have denied rights of the
Qasim Shaikh. However, neither defendant Nos.1 to 3 nor defendant
Nos.4 and 5 filed assignment deeds executed in their favour to show
that they would suffer inconvenience if any interim order to pay
monthly compensation amount in favour of plaintiffs is passed. Thus,
balance of convenience would also lie in favour of plaintiffs. Monthly
compensation was given to Qasim Shaikh for securing alternate shop.
Plaintiffs are legal representatives of Qasim Shaikh. Their livelihood
would be dependent upon the business from the alternate shop.
Therefore, plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss if they are deprived
from getting monthly compensation. Point Nos.1 to 3 are answered
-- 15 of 17 --
Order in N/M No.4918 of 2019 16
accordingly.
23. Plaintiffs also claimed interim injunction restraining
defendants from creating third party interest in respect of entire suit
property. Plaintiffs have primafacie rights in suit shop. They have not
claimed any interim relief for suit shop. But, they have claimed interim
relief in respect of entire property given to the defendants for
redevelopment. Naturally rights of the other parties would have been
involved in the suit property. Therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled to
claim injunction as prayed for.
24. Plaintiffs claimed monthly compensation of Rs.10,000/.
Record shows that defendants paid monthly compensation of Rs.8,000/
to Qasim Shaikh. It is not in dispute that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have
assigned their rights in the suit property to defendant Nos.4 to 6. It is
also not in dispute that after assigning rights in the suit property,
defendant No.4 paid monthly compensation of Rs.8,000/ to Qasim
Shaikh. Defendant Nos.5 and 6 are directors of defendant No.4.
Therefore, plaintiffs are entitled for monthly compensation of
Rs.8,000/ from defendant Nos.4 to 6. In the result following order.
ORDER
1. Defendant Nos.4 to 6 shall pay monthly compensation
of Rs.8,000/ to plaintiffs from the date of filing of suit
till further orders.
2. Prayer for interim injunction made in prayer clause (b)
of Notice of Motion No.4918 of 2019 is rejected.
3. No order as to costs.
-- 16 of 17 --
Order in N/M No.4918 of 2019 17
4. Notice of Notion No.4918 of 2019 is disposed of
accordingly.
( S.U.HAKE )
14/03/2022 JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, GR.MUMBAI.
Direct Typed & Half Dictation on : 14/03/2022.
Transcribed on : 21/03/2022.
Checked on : 22/03/2022.
Signed on : 23/03/2022.
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”.
23/03/22 at 05.15 pm.
Mrs.P.R.Wagh
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI SU Hake
Date of Pronouncement of
judgment/order
14/03/22
Judgment and order signed by P.O. 23.03.2022
Judgment/order uploaded on 23.03.2022
-- 17 of 17 --