Bombay HC Sets Aside Pune Court’s Order Against Runwal Enterprises In Land Dispute

Mumbai, March 18: In a dispute over development rights to land in Pune’s Lohgaon area, the Bombay High Court has partly set aside an ex parte interim injunction granted by a district court in favour of Bridge Water Realty LLP against Runwal Enterprises Ltd.

Challenge to ex parte injunction

A bench of Justices Shyam Suman and Gautam Ankhad was hearing an appeal filed by Runwal Enterprises Ltd. under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, challenging the order of the Pune district judge dated February 17, restraining it from “transacting, transferring, assigning or creating any charge or third-party interest” in the 3.93-hectare land, and from disturbing the alleged possession of Bridge Water Realty.

The bench noted that the primary grievance of Runwal was that the ex parte injunction had been granted without recording reasons for dispensing with prior notice, as required under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Arguments by both parties

Senior counsel Virag Tulzapurkar, appearing for Runwal, argued that “no reason whatsoever has been recorded” by the lower court for granting urgent relief without notice. He also contended that the respondent was not in possession of the property and therefore not entitled to a blanket injunction.

Opposing the plea, senior counsel Venkatesh Dhond for Bridge Water Realty submitted that the order was passed only to “protect and preserve the subject matter of the arbitration proceeding” and that the matter was still pending before the district court. However, he fairly suggested that the application for interim relief could be heard afresh after hearing both sides.

HC orders status quo, fresh hearing

Accepting the consensus, the HC set aside clauses restraining transactions and possession, directing instead that both parties “maintain status quo as regards the suit property in all respects” until the Section 9 application is finally decided.

The court also directed the appellant to file its objections within three days and requested the district court to dispose of the interim application expeditiously, preferably through day-to-day hearing, without granting adjournments.

Also Watch:

Jurisdiction issue raised by appellant

According to Runwal, the district court lacked jurisdiction as there was “absolute absence of any arbitration agreement” between the parties. The dispute traces back to a 2005 development agreement and subsequent transactions, with competing claims emerging over the years regarding rights in the land.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/