Pant Nagar Mahatma Phule Co-Op. Hsg. Society Ltd.And ORS. v. Maharashtra Housing And Area Developement Authority And ORS.

1/8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO.2 OF 2015 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.382 OF 2012

1. Pant Nagar Mahatma Phule Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd.

(A Co-operative Hsg. Society Registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960) having address at MHB. Bethi chawl, Ambedkar Chowk, Opp. Bldg.

No.66, Chawl No.1, Room No.1 to 8

2. Kumari Renu Singh Mamchand Age 24 years, occ. Tailor MHB, Bethi Chawl, Opp. Bldg. No.66, Chawl No.1, Room No.1/1, Pant Nagar, Ghatkopar (East),

3. Nanendra Charne Vaid Son of Late Shrimati Shiskore Charne Vaid, age 45 years Occ. Rickshaw Driver, MHB Bethi Chawl, Ambedkar Chowk, Ambedkar Chowk, Opp. Bldg.

No.66, Chawl No.1, Room No.1/2,

4. Mamchand Omprakash

2/8 Age 54 years, occ. Business MHB, Bethi Chawl, Ambedkar Chowk, Opp. Bldg. No.66, Chawl No.1, Room No.15, Pant Nagar, Ghatkopar (East),

5. Kumari Nitu Singh Lubana Age 30 years, occ. Service.

MHB, Bethi Chawl, Ambedkar Chowk, Opp. Bldg.No.66,

6. Shrimati Shikshadevi Mamchand, Age 52 years, occ. Housewife.

MHB. Bethi Chawl, Ambedkar Chowk, Opp. Bldg. No.66, Chawl No.1, Room No.1/7,

7. Shri Sundersingh Lubana Age 32 years, occ. Service.

MHB, Bethi Chawl, Ambekar Chowk, Opp. Bldg. No.66, Chawl No.1, Room No.1/8, .. Applicants.

(Orig. Appellants.) In the matter between :

1. Pant Nagar Mahatma Phule Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd.

(A Co-operative Hsg. Society Registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960) having

3/8 address at MHB. Bethi Chawl Ambedkar Chowk, Opp. Bldg. No.66, Chawl No.1, Room No.1 to 8,

2. Kumar Renu Singh Mamchand Age 24 years, occ. Tailor MHB. Bethi Chawl, Ambedkar Chowk, Opp. Bldg.

No.66, Chawl No.1, Room No.1/1,

3. Nanendra Charne Vaid Son of Late Shrimati Shiskore Charne Vaid, Age 45 years, occ. Rickshaw Driver, MHB Bethi Chawl Ambedkar Chowk, Opp. Bldg.No.66, Chawl No.1, Room No.1/2, Mumbai400 075.

4. Satbir Itwari Age 74 years. Occ. Retired MHB. Bethi Chawl, Ambedkar Chowk, Opp. Bldg. No.66, Chawl No.1, Room No.1/3,

5. Mamchand Omprakash Age 54 years, occ. Business, MHB, Bethi Chawl, Ambedkar Chowk, Opp. Bldg. No.66, Chawl No.1, Room No.1/5,

6. Kumari Nitu Singh Lubana Age 30 years, occ. Service.

4/8 MHB. Bethi Chawl, Ambedkar Chock, Opp. Bldg. No.66 Chawl No.1, Room No.1/6 Pant Nagar, Ghatkopar (East)

7. Shrimati Shikshadevi Mamchand Age 52 years, occ. Housewife.

MHB. Bethi Chawl, Ambedkar Chowk, Opp. Bldg. No.66, Chawl No.1, room No.1/6,

8. Shri Sundersingh Lubana Age 32 years, occ. Service.

MHB. Bethi Chawl, Ambedkar Chowk, Opp. Bldg. No.66, Chawl No.1, Room No.1/8, Pant Nagar, Ghatkopar (East), .. Appellants.

(Orig.Plaintiffs)

Versus

1. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority Through its Vice President, Grihanirman Bhavan, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400 051.

2. Mumbai Housing & Area Development Board, A MHADA Unit, Through its Chief Officer Grihanirman Bhavan, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400 051.

3. Assistant Land Manager-Kurla Taluka Mumbai Housing & Area Development Board, Grihnirman Bhavan, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051.

5/8

4. Slum Rehabilitation Authority Through its Chief Executive Officer, Having office at Anant Kanekar Marg Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051.

5. Ghatkopar Septic Tank Gurukrupa Co-operative Hsg. Society Ltd.

Through its Chairman/Secretary.

(A. Co-operative Hsg. Society Registered under the Provisions of the Maharahstra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960)

6. Abhini Developer Pvt Ltd.

Through its Directors, 149/156, Garodia Shopping Centre Garodia Nagar, Ghatkopar (East) Mumbai-400 077.

7. Municipal Co-operative for Greater Mumbai.

Through its Municipal Commissioner MCGM Head Office, Mahapalika Marg, CST, Mumbai-400 001.

.. Respondents.

(Orig. Defendants) Mr. Tushar Kochale a/w Altaf Khan i/b Anjali Awasthi, for Petitioners.

Ms. Aparna Murlidharan h/f Mr. P.G. Lad, for Respondents No.1 to 3.

Ms. Pallavi Jadhav h/f Mr. Jagdish Reddy, for Respondent No.4. Ms Armin Wandrewala a/w Ms. Dwari Bhatt i/b J.P. Kar, for Respondent No.5.

Mr. V.A. Thorat, Senior Counsel a/w S.B. Pawar, Swati Sawant i/b S.K. Legal Associates, for Respondent No.6. Mr. M.R. Bhoir i/b R.A. Malandkar, for Respondent No.7.

6/8 Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.

Date : 27th April, 2015 P.C.

1.

The applicants seek review of the order dtd. 1st December, 2014, by which their First Appeal was dismissed. The application for review was filed on 9th December, 2014. Pending the application, they approached the Apex Court on 9th January, 2015 by way of Special Leave Petition (SLP) only to withdraw it on 6th February, 2015. Pending the SLP i.e. on 21st January, 2015, they had mentioned the review application for urgent orders on 3rd February, 2015. However, no circulation was granted on that day as the applicants had not removed the office objections and the application was not given a regular number. This would mean that the applicants had simultaneously resorted to two remedies, one was of review of the order of this Court and other was of challenge to the order in the Higher Court. It is obvious that it was plainly a gamble played by them. Such conduct on the part of the applicants needs to be deprecated.

2.

The applicants have listed as many as 23 errors as the errors of law and fact apparent on the face of the record. Mr. Thorat, the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.6 and Ms. Wandrewala, the learned counsel for respondent No.5 submit

7/8 that all the grounds for review taken by the applicants were infact grounds for challenge to the order in the SLP. 3.

A bare look at the grounds of review is sufficient to know that same are argumentative and do not fall in the category of error apparent on record, which can be corrected without hearing detailed arguments as regards the facts alleged and the law applicable thereto. Therefore, the review application is not maintenable. If the applicants feels aggrieved by the findings or the conclusions drawn by this Court, the remedy available to the applicants would be only to challenge the same in the Higher court. Also the grounds taken in the review application and the grounds taken in the SLP being identical, the review application would amount to abuse of process of law.

4.

Mr. Kochale, the learned advocate for the applicants submits that either challenge of the SLP or dismissal of SLP or withdrawal of SLP cannot affect the right of the petitioner to seek review of the order. He has relied upon the following decisions of the Apex Court to support his argument. :-

1. Kunhayammed And ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Anr, reported in (2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases 359.

8/8

2. Board of Control for Cricket in India and anr. Vs. Netaji Cricket Club and ors, reported in (2005) 4 Supreme Court Cases 741.

3. Ahmedabad Manufacturing & Calico Printing Co., Ltd Vs. Workmen and Anr., reported in (1981) 2 Supreme Court Cases 663.

There is no dispute about the proposition advanced and hence, the decisions need not to be considered in detail. Nonetheless, since the applicants have failed to make out case of error apparent on the face of the record, which can be corrected within the scope of review of the order, the Review Application is dismissed with costs. The applicants shall pay costs quantified at Rs.25,000/- to each respondent, except respondents no.1 to 3. The costs to respondents no. 1 to 3 shall be paid in one set. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)