LAWS(BOM)-2021-3-6

MARKERS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD. Vs. M. VISVESVARAYA INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTRE AND ORS.

Decided On March 03, 2021
Markers Development Services Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
V/S
M. Visvesvaraya Industrial Research And Development Centre And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff has filed this suit seeking a declaration that the suit contract as contained in a letter dated 10th November 1980 executed by and between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 is valid, subsisting and binding. The suit came to be filed when the defendant sought to deny the contract and disturb the plaintiff's possession of the suit land. The suit land is located in Cuffe Parade at Mumbai. The plaintiff claims that they were entitled to a sub-lease in respect of the land from the defendant no.1, which was then a proposed lessee of the State of Maharashtra, since impleaded as defendant no.2 in the suit. Defendant no.3 is the Collector of Mumbai.

(2.) The present IA has been filed by the plaintiff seeking leave to amend the plaint in terms of the schedule annexed to the chamber summons. The amendment is being opposed by defendant nos.2 and 3. There is passive opposition from the defendant no.1 as well, which has filed an affidavit-in- reply dated 13th June 2019, in which the plaintiff's contentions in the chamber summons are sought to be denied. The defendant nos.2 and 3 have opposed the amendment, relying upon the affidavit of the Superintendent of Mumbai City Survey and Land Records.

(3.) The chamber summons is taken up today for final hearing and disposal. Appearing for the plaintiff in support, Mr. Khambata, the learned senior counsel submitted that pursuant to the suit contract, the plaintiff had commenced construction on the suit land some time in July, 1990. Thereafter in 2007, the defendant no.1 had threatened to disturb the plaintiff's possession of the suit lands, causing the suit to be filed in September, 2007. On or about 25th April, 2008, in a Notice of Motion filed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff secured an injunction restraining the defendant no.1 from in any manner selling, transferring, disposing of, alienating, encumbering or creating third party rights, interest in or entering upon any arrangement with anyone else in respect of the suit land or any part thereof. It is contended by Mr. Khambata that the injunction continues to be in force and has survived challenges in this court as well as the Supreme Court.