S.M. Pasha & Ors. v State of Maharashtra & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER:
FEBRUARY 17, 2023
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. Shah
Petitioner: S.M. Pasha & Ors.
Respondent: State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘Supreme Court’ or ‘the Court’), has permitted the petitioner to withdraw the Special leave petition completely. The court has also given direction about informing the concerned parties about the new development agreement and how each party is eligible to challenge the same before the appropriate court.
The Constitution of India 1949
- Article 136 – states the filing of special leave before the Supreme Court
- For defendant number 5, two interlocutory applications for perjury were submitted. Respondent No. 5 submitted one IA on its behalf to contest the cancellation of the development agreement that favoured them.
- The development arrangement in favour of respondent No. 5 was terminated on 08/10/2018 while the current procedures were on-going. Since the replacement developer has indeed been chosen, a new development deal has also been engaged into in their favour.
- Even after that, the development deal in pursuit of the respondent was cancelled by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority.
- Special leave petition has been filed against the order of the Bombay High Court by the tenants of the disputed property.
Whether the termination of the development agreement at the time of on-going proceedings is admissible?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- It has been prayed that in light of the following development, it has been requested that the petitioners be given permission to withdraw the SLP. In IA No. 128881/2019, the following events are already noted.
- It should be noted that the new development deal in favour of the respondent was cancelled by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority.
- The council specified that neither the petitioners nor the tenants are well versed with the terms and conditions of the fresh development agreement. Accordingly fresh copies of the development agreement need to be furnished by the management to the concerned people.
- The council prays that if the petitioners do not comply with the agreement's terms and conditions upon which the new development agreement has been signed into, it has been requested that the petitioners be given the freedom to dispute the agreement before the court of law.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The council argued that dissolution of the development agreements has been challenged by the way of filing Interlocutory application along with initiation of the perjury proceedings.
- The council prays that if it is not permissible to question the terminations of the respondent before the court and also the perjury application is not being entertained, then the respondent may retain the right to dispute the termination and following development agreement on behalf of a different developer before the competent court.
- Additionally, it may be ordered that the perjury applications be evaluated in compliance with the law and on their own merits based on the justifications mentioned in the applications.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT:
- The court noted the development agreement that was in favour of defendant number five will be terminated, and its terms will be incorporated into a new development agreement. The current administration must provide a copy of the same to the appropriate renters.
- It will be available for any tenant who feels wronged by the terms of the new arrangement to contest them in court, where they will be judged according to the law and on their own grounds.
- Even respondent number five seems to be eligible to contest the cancellation of the development agreement and the execution of the new development agreement in the proper court or venue.
- The SLP stands disposed of by the court on the above mentioned grounds and any pending application will also stand dismissed.
In the present case it can be seen that the court has observed the case form both the sided and considering the resulting development as mentioned and highlighted in IA No. 128881/2019, without affecting the rights and arguments of the parties involved in the litigation to be originated as noted below, and taking into account the petitioners' request in SLP (C) No. 4428/2016 for the SLP to be unquestioningly withdrawn.
Regarding petitioner No. 4, none have come forward. The current SLP is rejected as petitioner No. 4 in SLP (C) No. 4428/2016 in light of the following development despite the fact that none had otherwise appeared.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement