MARVE APARTMENT CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED THR ITS SECRETARY MR. SAVIO PEREIRA vs RAJKUMAR MALPANI AND OTHERS — IA/2428/2026
Case under C.p.c.- (interlocutory Order) Section 96. Disposed: --Disposed Off on 23rd April 2026.
CNR: HCBM010355762025
Filing Number
IA/22545/2025
Filing Date
03-07-2025
Registration No
IA/2428/2026
Registration Date
27-03-2026
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV
Bench Type
Single
Category
CIVIL APPEALS ( 45 )
Sub-Category
Single Bench Matters ( 2 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
23rd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
--Disposed Off
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MARVE APARTMENT CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED THR ITS SECRETARY MR. SAVIO PEREIRA
Adv. Adv Siddharth Kakka
Respondent(s)
RAJKUMAR MALPANI AND OTHERS
RONAK RAJKUMAR MALPANI
OM SRI MAA SHAKTI I NAMAH
SHRI PRASHANT K. DOSHI
SHRI DHARMESH K. DOSHI
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV
FOR ORDERS (DUE MATTERS)
FOR ORDERS (DUE MATTERS)
FOR ORDERS (DUE MATTERS)
FIRST ON BOARD (FOB)
FOR ADMISSION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 22-09-2025 | FOR ORDERS (DUE MATTERS) |
| 12-08-2025 | FOR ORDERS (DUE MATTERS) |
| 12-09-2025 | FOR ORDERS (DUE MATTERS) |
| 09-10-2025 | FIRST ON BOARD (FOB) |
| 20-11-2025 | FOR ADMISSION |
Orders
The High Court of Bombay clarified an ambiguous injunction order in a redevelopment dispute, holding that prayer clause (e) applies only to the plaintiffs' shop and office units, not as a blanket restriction on the housing society's redevelopment activities. The court upheld the trial court's order while permitting the society to proceed with further redevelopment steps with a new developer, subject to safeguarding the plaintiffs' substantive rights in their two units pending the suit's final outcome. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The High Court of Bombay clarified an ambiguous injunction order in a redevelopment dispute, holding that prayer clause (e) applies only to the plaintiffs' shop and office units, not as a blanket restriction on the housing society's redevelopment activities. The court upheld the trial court's order while permitting the society to proceed with further redevelopment steps with a new developer, subject to safeguarding the plaintiffs' substantive rights in their two units pending the suit's final outcome. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts