KUKREJA CONSTRUCTION CO. Vs. SURENDRA NARVEKAR & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order disposes of six notices of motion filed in six different suits. Three out of these six suits, namely, Suit No.1887 of 2011, Suit No.1888 of 2011 and Suit No.1889 of 2011, have been filed by Kukreja Construction Co. ("Kukreja"), a partnership firm, against one Surendra Narvekar ("Narvekar") and one Chandrakant Mahimkar ("Mahimkar") for specific performance of development agreements which provide for transfer of immovable properties. The other three suits have been filed by Narvekar against Mahimkar and Kukreja, seeking to challenge the validity of termination of the former's agreement with Mahimkar for development and sale of the suit properties, on the strength of which he had entered into agreements with Kukreja.

(2.) The suits cover three different parcels of land. Mahimkar, who is the owner of these properties, had entered into development agreements in respect of the properties with Narvekar, who in turn entered into development agreements with Kukreja. Narvekar, thereafter, purported to terminate the agreements with Kukreja. As a result, Kukreja filed the abovementioned three suits for specific performance of the agreements with Narvekar, impleading Mahimkar as a party to the suits. During the pendency of these suits, Mahimkar purported to terminate the agreements with Narvekar. This termination has been challenged by Narvekar by filing three separate suits, namely, Suit No. 605 of 2014, Suit No.606 of 2014 and Suit No.618 of 2014. During the pendency of all these six suits, Mahimkar and Kukreja have entered into consent terms, settling Suit No.1887 of 2011, Suit No.1888 of 2011 and Suit No.1889 of 2011, as between them. By these consent terms, Mahimkar has purported to transfer his rights in the suit property to Kukreja. The consent terms have been opposed by Narvekar. The opposition has been on the ground that during the pendency of these suits, which inter alia involve determination of Narvekar's rights vis-a-vis to the suit properties, Mahimkar ought not to be permitted to transfer the suit properties to Kukreja. By an order passed by this Court on 6 February 2015, this Court accepted the consent terms and disposed of the three suits filed by Kukreja as between Kukreja and Mahimkar with certain directions. The matter was carried in appeal before a division bench of this Court by Narvekar. Pending hearing of that appeal, the order of disposal of the suit as between Kukreja and Mahimkar in terms of the consent terms was stayed by the Division Bench. Kukreja preferred an SLP from that order, at the hearing of which the Supreme Court directed this Court to dispose of the Notices of Motion finally in a time bound manner. That is how the Motions are taken up for hearing together.

(3.) The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows: