August 22, 2018
In this recent case, the Supreme Court Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra has held that invocation of principle of moulding of reliefs so also the exercise of power to grant mandatory order at an interlocutory stage, is manifestly wrong.
Case name: Samir Narain Bhojwani v. M/s. Aurora Properties and Investments and Anr.
Brief Facts of the case– In the case, the Appellant has challenged Division Bench’s order, whereby the Court had passed a mandatory interlocutory injunction directing the appellant to hand over 8 (eight) flats along with 16 (sixteen) car parking spaces under the Settlement Agreement and Consent Terms between respondent Nos.1 and 2 inter partes.
The Court relying on Apex Court’s judgment in the case of Gaiv Dinshaw Irani and Others Versus Tehmtan Irani and Others, recorded that it had moulded the reliefs originally sought by respondent No.1 in the changed circumstances of the case and in order to shorten the litigation and do complete justice.
Respondent no.1 in the case was appointed as the Developer for developing the suit property in question. Subsequently, a development agreement was entered into whereunder the appellant would be entitled to 55% of the total area available for free sale buildings and car parking in the suit property and respondent No.2 retained 45% of the total area available for construction of free sale buildings and car parking.
The Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and made the following observations in the case:
- When can Interim Mandatory Injunction be granted?
That an interim mandatory injunction is not a remedy that is easily granted. It is an order that is passed only in circumstances which are clear and the prima facie material clearly justify a finding that the status quo has been altered by one of the parties to the litigation and the interests of justice demanded that the status quo ante be restored by way of an interim mandatory injunction.
- In view of the aforesaid observation, the Supreme Court opined in the present case that the invocation of principle of moulding of reliefs so also the exercise of power to grant mandatory order at an interlocutory stage, is manifestly wrong.
Thus, in view of the facts of the instant case, the Court noted that the High Court was swayed away by the consent agreement between the respondents inter partes to which the appellant was not a party, thus the appellant was not bound by the arrangement agreed upon between the respondents inter se.
The entire case can be accessed here.