NATASHA KOHLI Vs. MON MOHAN KOHLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CS(OS) No.1321/2006, as per the amended memo of parties dated 16th January, 2017 is filed by Natasha Kohli (Natasha) against (a) Mon Mohan Kohli (MMK), (b) M/s Jey Kay Pvt. Ltd. (JKPL), and, (c) Joginder Nath Kohli (Joginder) [since deceased through his legal heirs Veena Kohli and Arjun Kohli], for (i) permanent injunction restraining MMK from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of Natasha of property no.15A, Amrita Shergill Marg, New Delhi comprising of land ad-measuring 2227 sq. mtrs. and from creating third party interest therein; (ii) permanent injunction restraining the defendants, from changing the shareholding of JKPL by increasing the authorized share capital of JKPL and from issuing additional or subscribing un-issued 800 shares from authorized share capital of 2000, of JKPL; and, (iii) mandatory injunction directing the defendants to transfer 300 shares of JKPL from MMK to Natasha.

(2.) CS(OS) No.1321/2006 came up first before this Court on 19th June, 2006 when, while issuing summons thereof, vide ex partead- interim order, the defendants were restrained from dispossessing Natasha from property no.15A, Amrita Shergill Marg, New Delhi and the parties directed to maintain status quo qua the title and occupancy of the property.Vide subsequent order dated 21 st April, 2010, the applications for interim relief were disposed of directing, that (i) Natasha continues living in the guest annexeof the property and not interfere in the main building where MMK and Rishab Kohli (Rishab), sonof Natasha and MMK,were living except that Natasha could go to Rishab"sbed room and stay with him as per the wishes of Rishaband Rishab could also go to the guest annexe and stay with Natasha as and when he liked; (ii) Natasha does not interfere in the possession of MMK of the main building; (iii) MMK, JKPL and Joginder shall not sell and part with possession of property no.15A, Amrita Shergill Marg, New Delhi; (iv) the defendants to not create any obstruction in the passage leading to the guest annexe or other obstruction which results in hindrance in use of guest annexe by Natasha; and, (v) Natasha also does not create any hindrance in use of main building by MMK.

(3.) FAO(OS) Nos.303-06/2010 preferred against the said order were disposed of vide judgment dated 24th September, 2010 by directing Natasha to confine herself to the room styled as the study and use of the small Powder Room or toilet in front of the study and contiguous to Rishab"s bed room and to not enter the master and mezzanine bed rooms; Natasha was also permitted use of the guest annexe / outhouse; it was clarified that except for the master bedroom, Natasha shall be entitled to use the remaining part of the main house i.e. the Kitchen, Dining Room, Sitting Room and Drawing Room.