kanoon apna apna
the movie kanoon apna apna, released in 1989, features 4 songs from artists like balasubramaniam s. p. , asha bhosle and alka yagnik. what is your favorite song from kanoon apna apna ?
an unidentified group of chorus singers that appears in the hindi film
kanoon apna apna
and subsequent soundtrack recordings .
kanoon apna apna is a 1989 hindi action - drama film starring dilip kumar, sanjay dutt and nutan. [ 1 ] it was a box office hit, earning 4 crore net in 1989 .
tikekar to act as promoters of apna ghar co - operative housing society (proposed) .
kanoon apna apna was released in the year 1989, some songs of the official soundtrack are a b c d e f g by alka yagnik, eini mini aai aai yoh by bappi lahiri, gai gai gai gai main toh gai by balasubramaniam s. p. , pehli nazar mein ho gaye hum toh aapke deewane by balasubramaniam s. p. . listen the soundtrack online !
( iii) defendant no. 6 shri. sudhakar sitaram jadhav was elected / became the chief promoter of apna ghar co -
( i) an alleged special general body meeting was held on 24th december, 2011 of apna ghar co - operative housing society (proposed) .
the land referred in the consent term is sanctioned for allotment to apna ghar co - operative housing society limited (proposed) on the following exemptions / terms and conditions .
status - quo shall remain effective until further order on the land in question which is allotted to apna ghar co - operative housing society through the petitioner - chief promoter (proposed) .
c. thereafter, the said oshiwara land development entered into an agreement for sale dated 18 th february, 1981 with one mr. vasant mahadev tikekar and plaintiff no. 1 (the chief promoters of the said apna ghar) .
4) these reliefs were claimed by alleging that all the appellants are residents of mumbai. it would be convenient to refer to the appellants as original plaintiffs and the respondents as original defendants. the appellant / original plaintiff no. 1 is the chief promoter of apna ghar co - operative housing society limited (proposed). the appellants / original plaintiff nos. 2 to 10 and respondent / defendant nos. 61 and 62 are the present promoters / members of apna ghar co - operative housing society limited (proposed) .
l. on 17th april, 2012, the plaintiffs applied to the deputy registrar of co - operative societies for registration of the name of the proposed society with copy of the resolution passed by the said apna ghar co - operative housing society limited (proposed) .
( d) i say that the said association apna ghar co - operative housing society (proposed) was formed in 1980 under guidance of my late father mr. kamlakar laxman walawalkar, who then the managing partner of the defendant no. 4 and thereafter i have continued as managing partner of defendant no. 4 .
e. that this hon' ble court be pleased to set aside or cancel the development agreement dated 11th november, 2004, being exhibit' d' to the plaint, entered into between the plaintiff no. 1 in his capacity as the chief promoter of apna ghar cooperative housing society (proposed) and defendant no. 4 and declare that
( g) the plaintiff no. 1 admits having filed criminal complaint no. 101 / sw / 13 of 2013 before the 65 th metropolitan magistrates court at andheri and as exhibit' a' thereto, he has annexed supplemental agreement dated 18 february 1981. i say that the said agreement emanating from the plaintiff no. 1 himself shows the address of apna ghar co - operative housing society (proposed) as 11 - a, suyash, near amar hind mandal, gokhale road (n), dadar (west), mumbai 400028. thus, on the plaintiffs' admission full support has been extended by the defendant no. 4 to apna ghar co - operative housing society (proposed) .
tikekar in their capacity of chief promoters of apna ghar co - operative housing society (proposed) and samarth development corporation (defendant no. 4 in the present suit), in which, there is a reference to this suit no. 3429 of 1991 and the parties claimed that they are owners of a large chunk of land admeasuring 86 acres and 32 gunthas in
the said suit no. 3429 of 1991 thus was decreed as per the consent terms dated 19th december, 2006 filed therein. the said consent terms / decree inter alia provided that the said property shall be allotted to mr. ashok kulkarni, the plaintiff no. 1 herein in his capacity as the chief promoter of apna ghar co - operative housing society limited (proposed), the proposed plaintiff' s society .
16) then, there is an affidavit of defendant no. 4, which is at page 266 (volume i) of the paper book. the defendant no. 4 has dealt with the allegations regarding the development agreement dated 11 th november, 2004. it has been pointed out that the same is executed jointly by shri. vasant mahadev tikekar and original plaintiff no. 1, in their capacity as chief promoters of the proposed apna ghar co -
appl. 672. 2014. judgment. doc initials of plaintiff no. 1. those have been forged. thus, the agreement and its execution is not prima facie denied. if it is vitiated by false assurances and mis - representation on the part of defendant no. 4, then, the plaintiffs would have to explain as to how the consent terms in suit no. 3429 of 1991 have referred to land admeasuring 86 acres and 32 gunthas, within which the portions delineated on the plan are to be given to the chief promoters of the apna ghar co - operative housing society (proposed) and on the terms and conditions set out in exhibit' b' of the consent terms. there is a consent decree, under which, these lands have to be allotted to apna ghar co - operative housing society (proposed). the terms which are referred to in exhibit' b' read as under: -
the deputy registrar co - operative societies, k - west ward by its letter dated 15th may, 2012 rejected the application of the plaintiffs on the grounds that another society with the very same name, defendant no. 5 i. e. apna ghar co - operative housing society limited had been formed and registered on 28 th february, 2012 with respect to the said property. the same was on the application of the alleged chief promoters / members claiming to be the chief promoter and its members .
b. that this hon' ble court be pleased to declare that defendant no. 5 i. e. apna ghar co - operative housing society limited, or defendant nos. 6 to 60 are not entitled to be allotted or handed over possession of the said property. c. that this hon' ble court be pleased to set aside or cancel the resolutions dated 24th december, 2011 passed by defendant no. 5 and defendant nos. 6 to 60 and declare that the same are not binding upon the plaintiffs .
( f) i say that in the plaint, the plaintiffs refers to but has not annexed supplemental agreement dated 18 february 1981 entered between oshiwara land development company private limited on one hand and vasant mahadeo tikekar and the plaintiff no. 1 in their capacity as chief promoters of apna ghar co - operative housing society (proposed) whereby the lands admeasuring 86 acres was agreed to be acquired, which is the basis for allotment of the said lands, by virtue of consent terms (exhibit' g' to the plaint) in suit no. 3429 of 1991 .
they represented the interest of the members of an association, of which, they were chief promoters. that suit was in the process of being settled. the land was likely to be allotted to plaintiff no. 1. in such circumstances, the development agreement was entered into between vasant tikekar and plaintiff no. 1 as chief promoters of apna ghar co - operative housing society (proposed) with defendant no. 4 for development of the suit land. mr. samdani placed reliance upon clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the proposed terms of settlement, which have been
39) then, mr. samdani invited our attention to the copy of the development agreement dated 11 th november, 2004. mr. samdani relies upon clauses 5, 6, 7 and 13 of this agreement. he submits that this agreement is unstamped. later it was stamped on 16 th january, 2012. similarly, he invited our attention to the consent terms in suit no. 3429 of 1991 and particularly the clauses under the caption / title exhibit' b'. he invited our attention to the exemptions and the restrictions therein to submit that it is only the apna ghar co - operative
appl. 672. 2014. judgment. doc long as he constructs the building / s comprising of the flats to be handed over to the members of the respondent no. 5 society. mr. chagla has pointed out that by clauses 5, 6 and 7, it is evident that the chief promoters of the apna ghar co - operative housing society limited (proposed) did not retain any rights in the property but handed over the same to the developer. if these clauses are undisputed and unchallenged throughout, then, they have been accepted even by the original plaintiffs and particularly plaintiff no. 1 mr. ashok kulkarni .
( h) i say that it is not in dispute even by the plaintiffs that the development agreement (exhibit' d' to the plaint) or the development agreement (exhibit' e' to the plaint) refer to the address of apna ghar co - operative housing society (proposed) as 11 - a, suyash, near amar hind mandal, gokhale road (n), dadar (west), mumbai 400028 and even the registered address of the defendant no. 4 in 2004 has been 11 - a, suyash, near amar hind mandal, gokhale road (n), dadar (west), mumbai 400028 on this document .
appl. 672. 2014. judgment. doc development and protection of the land, along with interest thereon. it was the obligation of the society to submit the list of members within one year for the approval of the government and that the society will not be able to construct flats with more than 700 square feet. further, 20% members of the society must be from backward class. thus, the terms were executed later on, but in the backdrop of the above policy of the government. yet, prior to the execution of the terms, the development agreement came to be executed and with the background noted above. that background is the pendency of suit no. 3429 of 1991. in the recital on internal pages 2 to 4 of the agreement dated 11th november, 2004, there is specific reference to the understanding between the state and the apna ghar co - operative housing society limited (proposed), by which, the land would be obtained by this proposed society. the land would be acquired by the chief promoters of the apna ghar co - operative housing society limited (proposed) and to have the property developed for providing housing accommodation to the members of the society or societies. if they did not have the financial means to undertake the development of the property and were therefore desirous of handing over the development rights in relation thereto even before the property was handed over to the proposed society, then, the execution of the development agreement and with the clauses and stipulations thereof, to our mind, should have been
kulkarni, the chief promoters of apna ghar co - operative housing society (proposed). the suit was filed against the state of maharashtra and mhada for a declaration that the plaintiffs therein are absolute owners of the suit land, more particularly described in exhibit' b' to the plaint and that none of the defendants have any right, title or interest in the same. certain orders passed by the authorities under the maharashtra land revenue code were also challenged in the suit. in addition, a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants to that suit and / or any of them, their servants, agents, from in any manner interfering with and / or disturbing the plaintiffs' possession of the suit land was claimed. a development agreement was signed on 11 th november, 2004 between plaintiff no. 1 / appellant no. 1 and one v. m .
74) we are of the opinion that even the allegations, which are now made and by amending the plaint, would have to be proved. the allegations with regard to the agreement being not stamped or insufficiently stamped and therefore cannot be received in evidence need not detain us. the disputed portion of the agreement is commencing from the recital after 2 pages of the agreement and from page 3. in clause (1) there appears to have been an addition of certain words and at page 3 of the agreement 7700 square feet (built up) area to be given free of cost by the party of the second part, namely samarth development corporation to apna ghar co - operative housing society limited (proposed) are prima facie inserted. this flies in the face of the consent terms in suit no. 3429 of 1991 and particularly exhibit' b' thereto and the order of the hon' ble supreme court. thus, a tenement
68) this meeting of 24th december, 2011 has been assailed by the plaintiffs on several grounds and particularly absence of notice and that it was the builder and developer (defendant no. 4 samarth development corporation) who was instrumental in causing the removal of plaintiff no. 1 surreptitiously. thus, all the steps taken allegedly to convene and hold the meeting so also the decisions taken thereat (the minutes of the meeting dated 24 th december, 2011) are challenged in this suit. that, the plaintiff no. 1 never informed anybody that he was not interested in continuing as a chief promoter of the apna ghar co - operative housing society (proposed) and that he had no intimation of the meeting of the members convened on 24 th december, 2014 nor was he aware of any decisions taken thereat are the allegations which have been made extensively in the plaint, but they will have to be proved by the appellant no. 1 and other plaintiffs .
appl. 672. 2014. judgment. doc purpose of opposing ad - interim reliefs. however, we find from a perusal thereof that it is fairly extensive. the objections to the maintainability of the suit and on various grounds are set out from para 2 and it is urged that the basis of the present suit is identical to writ petition no. 4882 of 2013. thus, this is a case where both proceedings are identical. in the light of the suit being a copy of the writ petition and containing the same allegations, it was urged that the suit is not maintainable. then, it was urged that the plaintiff no. 1 has, only in the year 2012, enrolled plaintiff nos. 2 to 10 and defendant nos. 61 and 62 as members of the so called apna ghar co - operative housing society limited (proposed). the plaintiff nos. 2 to 10 and defendant nos. 61 and 62 are complete strangers. the suit is thus filed by plaintiff no. 1 alone. the plaintiff nos. 2 to 10 and defendant nos. 61 and 62 are put up by the plaintiff no. 1 to make a semblance of an association to raise false and frivolous disputes against defendant no. 5 society and its members being defendant nos. 6 to 60 .
tikekar as promoters of apna ghar co - operative housing society (proposed) and by defendant no. 4. after signing the development agreement, some of the members and plaintiff no. 1 started making demands on defendant no. 4 for provision of free flats in the buildings to be constructed on the said land. defendant no. 4 did not intend to have any dispute on this ground and therefore, he agreed to the demand of the members of the proposed society, including the plaintiff no. 1 for provision of flats admeasuring 7, 700 square feet built up in the buildings to be constructed on the land, free of cost. that is how clause (1) of the development agreement was modified and by an insertion. the development agreement, a soft copy of which was available at the office of defendant no. 4, was thus reprinted with this insertion i. e. by replacement of pages 3 and 4 of the previously executed development agreement. after the pages 3 and 4 were replaced in the already executed development agreement, plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 4 initialed the said pages. mr. tikekar agreed to this arrangement, but his initials on the said pages remained to be obtained. the insertion of pages 3 and 4 was made at the insistence of the members of the proposed society, which included plaintiff no. 1 and
some parts of this page won' t work property. please reload or try later .
an indian government official tries to remain loyal to his job and the state when his career is threatened by a criminal cartel who plan on ruining him as well as his son whom deals with the hoodlums in his own way of justice .
the
most anticipated indian movies and shows
widget tracks the real - time popularity of relevant pages on imdb, and displays those that are currently generating the highest number of pageviews on imdb .
each title is ranked according to its share of pageviews among the items displayed. pageviews for each item are divided by the aggregate number of pageviews generated by the items displayed .
trippy indie madeline' s madeline is the movie that lakeith stanfield and boots riley from sorry to bother you want to see the most .
want to share imdb' s rating on your own site? use the html below .
when a police inspector is killed by a band of thugs, his grieving father samsher singh seeks justice. pratap singh has left behind a pregnant widow, who dies in chidbirth, leaving samsher... see full summary »
brahmdutt, a rich steel baron is falsely convicted in the murder of his best friend and business partner premchand. when in prison, brahmdutt finds out from sources that his son in law... see full summary »
honest truck driver balwant watch helplessly as the owners of the trucking company he works for mauled his brother, jaswant to death. when he lodges a complaint with the police the... see full summary »
ilaaka - has a small little world of its own. a world of dreams and desires love and longings, hatred and hardships. this is raja who stands at the cross roads of truth and traditions. . in... see full summary »
childhood friends became enemies when one mahendra ashwini kumar grows up to be additional police commissioner and the other raj pratap singhal becomes a smuggler. mahendra have two sons... see full summary »
a girl is saved by a young man this experience brings them together. their union faces obstacles in the future .
avinash and his family relocate to bombay where his father commits suicide due to poverty. avinash who decides to bear the responsibility of his family, is unable to find a job and becomes a criminal .
kamal malhotra lives a struggling life with his mom and is employed as a salesman with retailers for a product called
godrej
, a famous hair dye. his life take a new turn when he is... see full summary »
ranjit varma and his younger brother, ravi works for a notorious criminal, veljibhai soda. while ranjit is veljibhai defense advocate; ravi does all his unlawful activities. on one... see full summary »
in order to get rain for the arid region in rajasthan, india, two royal families, from mirtagarh and surjangarh, have come together with their warriors, and fought with each other annually, ... see full summary »
thakur azghar singh lord over a small indian village named jalcott killing anyone standing in his way. when an honest police inspector jagdish chandar attempts to bring him to justice he is... see full summary »
tejaa watch helplessly as his parents gets assassinated by 3 absconding outlaws, lal singh, heeralal and zoravar, he then swears to avenge this carnage and this become the motive of his... see full summary »
the collector of anokhapur, jagatpratap singh, thwarts attempts by bhushannath bhadbhole and kabza kanhaiyalal to bribe him. things only get worse after bhushan gets elected and become the minister of fisheries, and is determined to humiliate and crush him at any cost. while attempting to deal with this abuse, jagatpratap faces another challenge when his rowdy and out - of - control son, ravi kumar, decides to take the law in his own hands .
dilip kumar worked with both sanjay dutt and nutan for the second and last time after vidhaata and karma respectively .
check out the indian movies with the highest ratings from imdb users, as well as the movies that are trending in real time .
लोटपोट कर देने वाली कॉमेडी - kadar khan - comedy - hindi full hd - t. v. series
sorry, we just need to make sure you' re not a robot. for best results, please make sure your browser is accepting cookies .
html public
- / / w3c / / dtd html 4. 01 / / en
urltoken
etimes is an entertainment, tv & lifestyle industry' s promotional website and carries advertorials and native advertising .
copyright © 2018 bennett, coleman & co. ltd. all rights reserved .
jagatpratap singh is the collector of anokhapur who refuses to buckle under any pressure nor accept any bribe from politician bhushannath bhadbhole and his friend kabza kanhaiyalal - under whose orders all unlawful activities are carried out. while jagatpratap wants to prosecute them under the fullest extent of the law; his son, ravi kumar proves to be the opposite who wants to take law into his hands .
it looks like we don' t have a synopsis for this title yet. be the first to contribute! just click the
edit page
button at the bottom of the page or learn more in the synopsis submission guide .
html public
- / / w3c / / dtd xhtml 1. 0 transitional / / en
urltoken
best blu - ray movie deals, see all the deals » now: friday the 13th: 8 - movie colle… $ 20. 00 (10% claimed )
the collector of anokhapur, jagatpratap singh (dilip kumar) urges on law and order. however his son ravi (sanjay dutt) believes that sometimes illegal means should be adopted to bring control. this causes discomfort between father and son. bhushannath' dharmendra' bhadbhole (kader khan) is a corrupt minister of fisheries. his son kailash (gulshan grover) and kabza kanhaiyalal (anupam kher) rape and kill jagatpratap' s maid - servant and also kill ravi' s friend. but they are acquitted because of a faked alibi. ravi decides to put these criminals to punishment which they deserve. but his father' s... (more )
you will get a notification at the top of the site as soon as the current price equals or falls below your price. you can also optionally receive an email notification (sent only once), this is specified in your
with our iphone - or android app. the apps are synchronized with your account at blu - ray. com, so you only need to install the app and login with your regular username and password .
this web site is not affiliated with the blu - ray disc association. all trademarks are the property of the respective trademark owners. © 2002 - 2018 blu - ray. com. all rights reserved. registration problems | business / advertising inquiries | privacy policy | legal notices
shri ashok dattatraya kulkarni... vs the state of maharashtra and 61 ors on 20 february, 2015
madhvi amma bhawani amma and ors vs kunjikutty pillai meenakshi... on 27 april, 2000
ramji mandir narsinhji and ors. vs narsinh nagar co - operative... on 1 december, 1978
sagar bhagwat gawande (in jail) vs the state of maharashtra thr. the... on 28 february, 2018
shivshankar shivram singh and 3... vs state of maharashtra nad 4 ors on 4 may, 2016
jitendra manohar dixit and anr. vs gopal babulal upadyay and ors. on 16 april, 2001
try out our premium member services: virtual legal assistant, query alert service and an ad - free experience. free for one month and pay only if you like it .
reserved on: - december 22, 2014 pronounced on: - february 20, 2015 judgment: - (per s. c. dharmadhikari, j .) this appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent challenges the order of a learned single judge of this court dated 7 th
appl. 672. 2014. judgment. doc october, 2014 in notice of motion no. 1352 of 2013 in suit no. 730 of 2013. by this order, the learned single judge of this court has proceeded to dismiss this notice of motion with costs .
2) the appeal is admitted. the contesting respondents waive service. by consent, the appeal is heard finally .
3) the original plaintiffs are in appeal before us. the appellants instituted the above suit in this court claiming the following reliefs: -
a. that this hon' ble court be pleased to declare that the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 61 and 62 are entitled to allotment and possession of all those pieces of parcels of land or ground bearing (i) survey no. 120 (part) bearing c. t. s. no. 1374 / a / 8 / 1 to 5 admeasuring 39, 790. 80 sq. mtrs; (ii) survey no. 120 (part) bearing c. t. s. no. 1374 / a / 4 admeasuring 41, 570. 10 sq. meters ;
( iii) survey no. 120 (part) bearing c. t. s. no. 1374 / a3 admeasuring 13, 500. 40 sq. mtrs; in all aggregating to 94, 861. 30 square meters all of village versova, taluka andheri, district mumbai suburban (the said property) .
d. that this hon' ble court be pleased to set aside or cancel the agreement dated 9th april, 2013 executed by defendant no. 5 .
appl. 672. 2014. judgment. doc the same is not binding upon the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 61 and 62 .
e (i). that this hon' ble court be pleased to declare that the alleged development agreement (exhibit e) hereto is forged, fabricated, null and void and not binding on plaintiffs and defendant nos. 61 and 62 .
5) it was further stated that the original defendant no. 1 is state of maharashtra. respondent / defendant no. 2 is maharashtra housing and area development authority (' mhada' for short) and which is an authority constituted under the maharashtra housing and area development act, 1976. the original defendant no. 3 is the collector of mumbai suburban district. the original defendant no. 4 is a partnership firm registered under the provisions of the
, 1932. the original defendant no. 5 is a society allegedly formed and registered under the maharashtra co - operative
appl. 672. 2014. judgment. doc societies act, 1960, but by mis - representation and fraud. the original defendant no. 6 claims to be the chief promoter / chairman of this society (original defendant no. 5) and original defendant nos. 6 to 60 are its purported members .
a. byramjee jeejeebhoy pvt. ltd. and / or its predecessors (hereinafter called' predecessors') were vested with the entire survey no. 41 in village oshiwara by virtue of a kaul or grant dated 12th october, 1820. the said grant and / or archival record from pune mentions the aggregate area of survey no. 41 at the date of vesting in the said predecessors to be 1270 acres and 20 gunthas out of which 184 acres and 12 gunthas of land is separately shown as' khajan' and the remaining 1086 acres and 8 gunthas has also been shown separately .
b. the said predecessors as vendors and one govindbhai appaji bhatte and others as partners of new swastik land development corporation as purchasers (subsequently named as
oshivara land development corporation private limited
and hereinafter referred to as
the said oshiwara development
) entered into an agreement for the sale of the entire survey no. 41
appl. 672. 2014. judgment. doc of village oshiwara, as recorded by an agreement for sale dated 25th january, 1964, modified by writings dated 6 th august, 1964, 23rd december, 1964, 9th march, 1966, 18th august, 1966 and 11th september, 1967 .
d. due to pending disputes and differences, the said oshiwara development along with the plaintiff no. 1 (plaintiff no. 4 therein) and others had filed suit bearing no. 3429 of 1991 (the said suit) in the hon' ble high court at bombay against defendant no. 1 i. e. the government of maharashtra and defendant no. 2 i. e. mhada therein. the said proceedings pertained to disputes in connection with the ownership and entitlement of a larger piece of property that included the property (now numbered as) i. e. all those pieces or parcels of land or ground bearing (i) survey no. 120 (part) bearing c. t. s. no. 1374 / a / 8 / 1 to 5 admeasuring 39, 790. 80 sq. mtrs; (ii) survey no. 120 (part) bearing c. t. s. no. 1374 / a / 4 admeasuring 41, 570. 10 sq. meters (iii) survey no. 120 (part) bearing c. t. s. no. 1374 / a3 admeasuring 13, 500. 40 sq .
appl. 672. 2014. judgment. doc mtrs; in all aggregating to 94, 861. 30 square meters all of village versova, taluka andheri, district mumbai suburban (the said property) .
e. the said predecessor purportedly claiming certain rights in respect of the said property filed suit no. 1096 of 2009. the suit is filed on the basis of writing dated 5. 11. 1990 said to be executed between the said predecessor and the said oshiwara development .
another purported writing dated 21. 10. 1999 is also referred in the said suit along with mr. vasant tikekar, an erstwhile chief promoter as defendant no. 3, the chief promoters of proposed plaintiff society .
f. on 11th november, 2004, a purported agreement titled as development agreement is alleged to have been entered into by plaintiff no. 1 in the instant suit, namely, suit no. 730 of 2013 with defendant no. 4 thereto. the said agreement was executed on the basis of false assurances, misrepresentations and undue influence. the said agreement was without consideration. the same was not valid in law and was void ab - initio. the said agreement was on a stamp paper of rs. 100 / - purchased in the name of vikas kamlakar walawalkar. the stamp paper is dated 3 rd january, 2004, the said agreement runs into 11 pages. on page 3 ,
appl. 672. 2014. judgment. doc the main body of the agreement begins, the said page 3 bears the initial of three persons. page 4 of the agreement also bears the initials of three persons. the said agreement could have never have been acted upon .
g. an fir has been registered against the partners of defendant no. 4 and the alleged chief promoters / members of defendant no. 5 in connection with forgery, cheating and fraud, as they have interpolated and fabricated 2 pages of the said agreement. even otherwise the said agreement being inadequately stamped cannot be looked into and should have not been acted upon .
h. consent terms dated 19th december, 2006 were filed in the said suit no. 3429 of 1991. the high court by an order dated 29th june, 2007, declined to pass decree in terms of the consent terms on record. appeal bearing no. 674 of 2007 was filed against the said order dated 29 th june, 2007. the division bench of this court, vide its order dated 17 th january, 2008 quashed and set aside the order dated 29th june, 2007 and the matter was remanded back to the trial court for de - novo consideration .
appl. 672. 2014. judgment. doc i. the said order dated 17th january, 2008 passed by the division bench of this court was challenged / impugned before the hon' ble supreme court, in which, the hon' ble supreme court, in civil appeal no. 6245 of 2008 (arising out of slp (c) no. 9785 of 2008) by its order dated 23rd october, 2008, ordered that suit no. 3429 of 1991 is disposed of by way of consent terms dated 19th december, 2006 and decree be passed and drawn up in the said suit .
k. after the passing of the order dated 17 th january, 2008, the plaintiffs were confronted with various conflicting claims by the said predecessor and the said oshiwara development and untenable demands by defendant no. 4 i. e. samarth development corporation as the plaintiff no. 1 was also impleaded in suit no. 1096 of 2009 in respect of the said property. an interim order dated 25th august, 2009 was passed therein inter alia requiring
appl. 672. 2014. judgment. doc information to be furnished to the said predecessors as directed therein on allotment of land in terms of consent terms in suit no. 3429 of 1991 .
( ii) no notice or intimation thereof had been given to the plaintiff no. 1 in his capacity as a chief promoter and / or member .
operative housing society (proposed) i. e. defendant no. 5 as proposed in the said meeting .
( iv) it was inter alia recorded therein that the plaintiff no. 1 was not interested in acting as the chief promoter. the status of the plaintiff no. 1 as a member bears no reference at all .
( v) vikas walavalkar the partner of defendant no. 4 was also present in the said meeting. on the basis of the purported development agreement, members were inducted by the said vikas walavalkar as members of defendant no. 5 .
( vi) the copy of the development agreement enclosed to the application for registration of defendant no. 5 was interpolated and forged .
( vii) no document was annexed to indicate the manner in which shri. sudhakar sitaram jadhav became the chief promoter .
( viii) no document was annexed as to whether plaintiffs were given notice of the alleged meeting or not .
( ix) the application to register was made on 18th february, 2012 and defendant no. 5 was registered within 10 days on 28th february, 2012 .
( x) it is obvious that the special general body meeting and the minutes thereof are sham and bogus .
west ward that the plaintiff no. 1 was now not the chief promoter and further that other members were inducted by following proper procedure .
( xii) the application for registration of the defendant no. 5 by shri. sudhakar sitaram jadhav in the capacity as the purported chief promoter is unlawful, invalid, mischievous and fraudulent .
o. being aggrieved by the order of grant of registration of defendant no. 5 by the deputy registrar, co - operative societies, k - west ward, the plaintiff no. 1 filed application no. 22 of 2012 before the divisional joint registrar, co - operative societies under
p. the alleged chief promoters / members of defendant no. 5 filed two separate replies in the above matter .
q. the plaintiff no. 1 filed his affidavit in rejoinder dated 6 th october, 2012 dealing with the contents of the said replies .
r. the divisional joint registrar, co - operative societies, by his order and judgment dated 22nd february, 2013 rejected the application filed by the plaintiff no. 1 .
operative societies, the plaintiff no. 1 filed appeal under section 152 of the said act before defendant no. 1 .
t. it is thereafter learnt and revealed that the competent authority has issued letter dated 2nd february, 2013 in favour of defendant no. 5 purportedly allotting the said property to defendant no. 5. the plaintiff no. 1 has addressed letter dated
appl. 672. 2014. judgment. doc 13th may, 2013 to the attorneys of the said predecessors intimating inter alia about the same .
u. the plaintiff no. 1 has filed criminal complaint against defendant no. 4 and its partners and all the members of defendant no. 5, before 65 th court at andheri in connection with the forgery and tampering with the purported development agreement. the magistrate court has, on 20th march, 2013 passed an order directing the police authorities to investigate and submit its report under section 156 (3) of the criminal procedure code .
v. defendant no. 1 by its judgment and order dated 8 th may, 2013 dismissed the said appeal .
w. the plaintiffs have, by their letter dated 4 th june, 2013, terminated the said agreement out of abundant precaution as not valid in law and not binding upon the plaintiffs .
x. the plaintiffs have filed civil writ petition no. 4882 of 2013 impugning the said orders dated 22 nd february, 2013 and 8th may, 2013. on 6th june, 2013, the vacation judge of this court has passed an order to maintain status quo in connection with the said property .
appl. 672. 2014. judgment. doc y. at the hearing of the said writ petition for ad - interim reliefs, on 6th june, 2013, a reference was made by advocate for the defendant no. 5 to an agreement dated 9 th april, 2013 between defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 5. the defendant no. 5 had deliberately suppressed and had not disclosed the said agreement at the time of hearing of the appeal .
7) thus, it is alleged that original defendant no. 4 in collusion and connivance with defendant nos. 5 to 60, purportedly, without any authority, have enrolled members and got registered defendant no. 5 .
these acts on their part are vitiated by impersonation. they are termed as mischievous, malafide and fraudulent. the claim is that the registration of the defendant no. 5 is purportedly done on the basis of a resolution dated 24th december, 2011 but none of the promoters / members were present in the said meeting. none of the members, namely, the plaintiffs, have been given notice of the said meeting. the original plaintiff no. 1 has never made a statement to defendant no. 4 that he is not willing to act as a chief promoter or chairman of the proposed society. there is no basis for the defendant nos. 5 to 60 to rely upon any such representation by defendant no. 4 .
defendant no. 5 and / or defendant no. 6 had no authority to call for a special general body meeting. defendant no. 4, along with defendant
appl. 672. 2014. judgment. doc nos. 6 to 60 has fraudulently and behind the back of the plaintiffs held the special general body meeting of this proposed society, wherein, plaintiff no. 1 has been purportedly removed as the chief promoter thereof on the false pretext that he was not interested in acting as the chief promoter of the proposed society. no notice of the alleged meeting dated 24th december, 2011 was given to the plaintiffs. the chief promoter, thus, did not lose his status as a member of the society .
defendant no. 4 and defendant nos. 6 to 60 perpetrated fraud and misrepresented the competent authorities in getting the defendant no. 5 society registered .
8) it is claimed in paras 5 and 6 of the plaint that since inception, all throughout and till the date of the institution of the suit, plaintiff no. 1 has acted as the chief promoter of the proposed society .
the proposed society of the plaintiff no. 1 has 11 other members, namely, plaintiff nos. 2 to 10 and defendant nos. 61 and 62. they were regularly holding meetings and resolutions have also been passed .
in such circumstances, none of the acts of the defendant nos. 6 can be said to be valid and they are vitiated as above .
9) the development agreement dated 11 th november, 2004 cannot be looked at, as the same is without consideration. the agreement has been made on a stamp paper of rs. 100 / - purchased in
appl. 672. 2014. judgment. doc the name of vikas kamlakar walawalkar. the stamp paper is dated 3 rd january, 2004. the agreement runs into 11 pages. on page 3, the main body of the agreement begins and the said page 3 bears the initials of 3 persons. page 4 of the agreement also bears the initials of 3 persons .
appl. 672. 2014. judgment. doc in law. it is inadequately stamped. there are interpolations therein, which have been made fraudulently and deliberately. page nos. 3 and 4 of the agreement have been changed. the alleged development agreement produced by defendant no. 5 in collusion and connivance with defendant nos. 6 to 60, before the deputy registrar has different page nos. 3 and 4 and even the clauses / terms as mentioned in the agreement have been changed fraudulently. defendant no. 4 has, with malafide intention, committed forgery and tampered with the said agreement without knowledge, consent or concurrence of the plaintiffs .
these and other allegations, as are found in the original and amended plaint, have led to the institution of the suit and claiming the aforereproduced reliefs. the original plaint was filed sometime in 2013. there are amendments made to the plaint, based on which, prayer clause [ e (i) ] is inserted and prior thereto, there are certain averments and allegations, essentially to demonstrate as to how the documents executed by the contesting defendants are vitiated in the manner alleged above .
10) it is in such suit that the application for interim relief was filed and the events disclosed that on 21st january, 2014, an application for ad - interim reliefs in terms of the prayers of the notice of motion was made, but those were refused. in appeal (l) no. 56 of 2014, this court
appl. 672. 2014. judgment. doc passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo. the plaint was amended by order dated 3rd april, 2014 .
11) the prayers in the notice of motion are essentially of an injunction to restrain the original defendant nos. 4 and 5, their servants, agents or nominees and / or persons or entities claiming through or under them and / or their nominees and / or any persons or entities claiming through or under them from creating any third party rights, title and / or interest of whatsoever nature in connection with the said property. that pending the hearing and final disposal of the above suit, the effect, implementation of the resolution dated 24 th december, 2011 be stayed and / or suspended. there are prayer clauses (c) and (d) to this notice of motion, which read as under: -
( c) that pending hearing and final disposal of the above suit all further proceedings, acts, deeds and / or things done or to be done by defendant nos. 4 to 60 or their servants, agents, representatives with a view to take over possession of the said property from defendant nos. 1 to 3 to be stayed, suspended and / or kept in abeyance .
( d) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the above suit, defendant nos. 4 to 60 or their servants, agents, representatives or persons claiming through or under them be directed to maintain status quo in respect of the said property .
12) this motion was supported by an affidavit of the appellant no. 1 / original plaintiff no. 1. there are affidavits filed to oppose grant of any ad - interim relief as also final reliefs. the affidavit of the original defendant no. 5 dated 9th july, 2013 is stated to be filed for a limited
13) the affidavit in reply adopts the stand adopted in a reply affidavit dated 15th june, 2013 filed in writ petition no. 4882 of 2013 .
then, without prejudice and alternatively it was submitted that the entire suit is an abuse to process of the court. the plaintiffs seek to re -
agitate issues which are already settled by orders dated 22 nd and 8th may, 2013 (annexures' p' and' t' to the plaint) .
14) further, the reliefs are barred by delay and laches. as far back as on 28th february, 2012, vide certificate of registration (annexure' k' to the plaint) defendant no. 5 society has been registered and the intent and object thereof being to have allotment of the land, plaintiff no. 1 is fully aware of this registration and that the 5 th defendant is interested in obtaining allotment of the land in its favour. the plaintiffs have acquiesced in the registration of the defendant no. 5 society and the allotment of the said land in favour of the defendant no. 5 society .
they have allowed the defendant nos. 6 to 60 to pay rs. 58, 25, 30, 376 / -
and incur several costs and liabilities. the plaintiffs have allowed the defendant nos. 6 to 60 and / or defendant no. 5 and / or defendant no. 4 to alter their position to their detriment and now, after more than 1 and half year, are belatedly seeking orders against the contesting defendants. the developments leading to the filing of an application challenging the registration are then set out in para 7 (a) to (d) of this affidavit. then, in para 8, it is submitted that there is no question of this court passing any order in terms of prayer clause (c) of the plaint to set aside or cancel the special general body resolution dated 24 th december, 2011, a copy whereof is annexed to application no. 22 of 2012. that resolution was passed by the members of the proposed society inter alia for electing the new chief promoter in place of the plaintiff no. 1, for adopting the development agreement dated 24 th
appl. 672. 2014. judgment. doc november, 2004 and for registration of the defendant no. 5 society .
after registration of the society, as evidenced by registration certificate dated 28th february, 2012, the effect and object of the said resolution has been worked out. in such circumstances, prayer clause (c) of the plaint is rendered infructuous. no interim relief can be granted .
15) para 9 of this affidavit sets out as to how the reliefs in terms of other prayers of the plaint also cannot be granted. apart from the plaintiffs having no right to claim such reliefs, which amounts to interfering with the affairs of the defendant no. 5, it was pointed out that the aforementioned huge sum has been paid for acquiring the land and defendant no. 5 is absolute and lawful owner of the land. reliance was placed upon an agreement dated 9th april, 2013 (annexure' x' to the plaint), which is duly registered with the sub - registrar of assurances. there were several efforts and which have been undertaken by a core group of members, forming the association, of which, the plaintiff no. 1 and shri. v. m. tikekar were the promoters.
kanoon apna apna is a 1989 hindi action-drama film starring dilip kumar , sanjay dutt and nutan . it was a box office hit , earning 4 crore net in 1989 . the film , however , did not live up to the expectations set by vidhaata ( 1982 ) that also starred both dilip kumar and sanjay dutt . 
kanoon apna apna is a 1989 hindi action-drama film starring dilip kumar, sanjay dutt and nutan. it was a box office hit, earning 4 crore net in 1989. the film, however, did not live up to the expectations set by vidhaata (1982) that also starred both dilip kumar and sanjay dutt.
kanoon apna apna is a 1989 hindi action-drama film starring dilip kumar, sanjay dutt and nutan. it was a box office hit, earning 4 crore net in 1989. the film, however, did not live up to the expectations set by vidhaata (1982) that also starred both dilip kumar and sanjay dutt.