Leena Mansukh Gala and Anr v. Date Bunglow Co Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd

Renuka 13-WP-7275-2026IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONWRIT PETITION NO. 7275 OF 2026Leena Mansukh Gala and Anr...PetitionersV/s.Date Bunglow Co Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd...Respondent________________Mr. Y. R. Mishra with Mr. Upendra Lokegaonkar with Sachidanand T.Singh for Petitioner. Ms. Aseem Naphade i/b Mr. Jainish Jain for Respondent-Society. ________________CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 15 JUNE 2026.P.C.:1) The Petition challenges order dated 21 May 2026 passed bythe learned Member, Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court,Mumbai dismissing A. O. No. 24 of 2026 and confirming the order dated 7March 2026 passed by the Co-operative Court on Interim Application atExh-5. The Co-operative Court has rejected the Interim Application atExh-5 seeking interim injunction during pendency of the dispute.2)I have heard Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing forthe Petitioners and Mr. Naphade, the learned counsel appearing for theRespondent. I have considered the submissions canvassed by them. Page No. 1 of 5 15JUNE 2026 Renuka 13-WP-7275-20263)I have gone through the reasons recorded by the Trial andthe Appellate Courts while passing the impugned orders. I have alsoperused the records of the case filed along with the Petition.4)It must be observed at the very outset that the Petition isrendered infructous on account of possession of the flats being takenover by the developer for redevelopment on 13 June 2026. It appears thatthe developer had filed Arbitration Petition(L) No. 3112 of 2026 underSection 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. By order dated 9March 2026, this Court had directed taking over possession of respectiveunits from Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 (which included the Petitioners)within 30 days of receipt of notice from the developer. 5)Mr. Mishra submits that the order passed by this Court on 9March 2026 in Arbitration Petition (L)No. 3112 of 2026 is subject matterof pending Appeal before the Division Bench. Be that as it may. TheDeveloper has admittedly taken over possession of the flats from thePetitioners on 13 June 2026. Faced with this difficulty, Mr. Mishrasubmits that the Petitioners are in the processes of filing the Applicationbefore the Appellate Court for restoring of possession of the flats.However, as of now, it is seen that the possession of the flats is alreadytaken over from the Petitioners and the very purpose for seeking interiminjunction by filing Application at Exh-5 has now come to an end. This isthe reason why this Court has made an observation that the Petition isrendered infructuous. Page No. 2 of 5 15JUNE 2026 Renuka 13-WP-7275-20266)Even if the factum of Petitioners loosing possession of theirflats is to be momentarily ignored, in my view no error can be traced inthe orders passed by the Trial and the Appellate Courts. Petitioners areaggrieved by the resolutions dated 25 August 2024, 24 November 2024and 26 January 2025 adopted by general body of the Respondent-societyappointing a developer for a re-development of the society's building.The order of the Appellate Court addresses all the concerns sought to beraised by the Petitioners by recording its prima facie findings. So far asthe contention of appointment of the developer being contray to thetender conditions, the Co-operative Appellate Court has taken note ofclause 2b to d of the tender under which the society through its generalbody has necessary power to modify/alter or amend or relax the tenderconditions. So far as financial condition of the developer is concerned,the Co-operative Appellate Court has recorded prima facie finding aboutthe fulfillment of financial criteria by the Development. The Co-operative Appellate Court has recorded following prima facie findings inits order:29) By agenda notice dated 10/11/2024 the opponent society hasconveyed a SGBM dated 24/11/2024 to discussed the proposed planssubmitted by the developers and to discuss the financial offers of thedeveloper. In the SGBM dated 24/11/2024 the majority membershave given first preference to the offer submitted by M/s. FlyingEarth LLP. The respondent society has issued agenda Notice dated09/01/2025 for SGBM dated 26/01/205 which is to be attended andpresided over by authorised officer of the co-operative department.This meeting is called for appointment of developer forredevelopment of the building of respondent society and after duediscussion and deliberation. M/s.Flying Earth LLP was selected as adeveloper by majority of 12 members and accordingly, theDevelopment Agreement was finalised and executed by the society infavour of M/s. Flying Earth LLP. This development agreement isregistered on 23/03/2025. The development agreement containsdefault and termination clause.Page No. 3 of 5 15JUNE 2026 Renuka 13-WP-7275-202630)It is prima facie seen that as per Clause 2(c) and (d) of thetender document, the terms and conditions of the tender documentcan be modified by the society and the offer submitted by M/s. FlyingEarth LLP was put up before the SGBM of respondent society dated24/11/2024 which was accepted by majority of the members and theoffer is finally put up before the SGBM dated 26/01/2025 which wasaccepted by the General Body of the respondent society by majorityand the Development Agreement is executed and registered. As perclause 2(c) of the tender document clauses mentioned in DA willsupersedes those of tender unless not mentioned in DA. As such, it isprima facie seen that after execution and registration of DA thetender document has loses its existence and tender documentmerged into the Development Agreement. Hence, after execution ofDevelopment Agreement, the relief on the basis of tender documentcannot be granted.31)Moreover, from perusal of the financial assessment report ofM/s.Prithvi Group filed on record at page No.251. it is prima facieseen that M/s. Flying Earth LLP is the part of M/s. Prithvi Group andfrom perusal of financial analysis, it is prima facie seen that M/s.Prithvi Group has fulfilled the financial criteria mentioned in thetender document.7)In view of the above position, there is absence of prima faciecase in favour of the Petitioners for grant of temporary injunction. Thebalance of convenience is clearly tilted against the Petitioners. TheSociety has apparently 17 flats and 14 members have cooperated in theredevelopment process. During pendency of dispute, the entireredevelopment project cannot remain in state of Limbo. In that view ofthe matter, it is otherwise in the interest of all the members that theredevelopment process is undertaken in an expeditious manner. Noserious prejudice would be caused to the Petitioners on account ofrefusal of temporary injunction. Petitioners would receive all the benefitsof the redevelopment as and when they execute agreement forPermanent Alternate Accommodation with the developer and thesociety. In my view, therefore no case was made out for grant of anyPage No. 4 of 5 15JUNE 2026 Renuka 13-WP-7275-2026temporary injunction in favour of the Petitioners. The Trial Court hasrightly rejected Application at Exh-5 by order dated 7 March 2026.Dismissal by Appeal of the Cooperative Appellate Court is also in order. 8)The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]Page No. 5 of 5 15JUNE 2026