Pittie Antariksh Grl Pvt Ltd v. Kher Nagar Sai Prasad Co-operative Housing Society Ltd

13 As a knee jerk reaction to this, the Society terminated Antariksh as its Developer by letter dated 24/5/2023, inter alia, on the ground of delay, in forwarding the revised terms of redevelopment to the defendant. Thereafter, a public notice was issued by the Society, inviting fresh tenders for redevelopment of the suit property. In the backdrop that Antariksh has already taken fruitful steps towards redevelopment, by demarcating the suit plot, appointing lawyers, architects, structural consultants and NEP Consultants, liasoning consultants etc, and had incurred cost of Rs. 1,22,70,600/- towards redevelopment of the property, it retorted back by referring to the termination, as unlawful, illegal and bad-in-law. It is in this background, the Suit is filed by the plaintiff, seeking a declaration about a valid and subsisting contract between the parties and for its specific performance, in terms of the agreement contained in the communication dated 30/8/2021 and 23/10/2021.

14 The moot question that arises for consideration before me is, whether a finally signed Development Agreement is necessary for presuming a concluded contract, particularly, when in its absence, material terms are already finalized amongst the parties. Learned senior counsel Mr. Sharan Jagtiani has taken me through the slew of the communications exchanged between the parties and has submitted that the repudiation of the concluded contract on material terms on 8/1/2023, was the breaking point and according to him, the draft Agreement was finalised and already exchanged and therefore, a consensus was arrived between the parties on all the material terms of redevelopment and as on 8/1/2023, the contract was concluded on all material terms, when the Society itself acknowledged so, in its communication, with reference to the queries or points mailed and received positive reply from Antariksh on majority of the points. It was also indicated in the communication that the members of the Society have an oral confirmation on the same and Antariksh was requested to send a formal mail with its regards. However, the demand of total area of 578 sq.ft comes at the end of the concluded contract and this was not the matter of negotiation between the parties, before the concluded contract was reached. It is the submission of learned senior counsel that on material terms, the offer of the plaintiff was accepted on 23/10/2021 itself, when it gave a revised offer letter which contained all the necessary stipulations as per the notice inviting tender. It is in furtherance of this offer being accepted, the authorised Officer of the Co-operative Societies had informed it that in the SGM of the Society, 75% of the members had appointed it as a ‘Developer’ for their project. What was only required to be done was execution of a formal agreement, comprising the agreed terms and conditions, which were already finalised between the parties by exchange of correspondence. Further, according to him, when on 31/10/2021, a letter was addressed by the Society confirming its appointment as developer, the concluded contract has come into existence and the subsequent stages, which though did not culminate into execution of Development Agreement, do not in any way, defuse the contract, which had arrived, between the Parties, on their consensus having arrived on material terms. Mr.Jagtiani would rely upon the decision of this Court in case of Kalpataru Ltd Vs. Middle Class Friends Co-op Housing Society Limited (CARBPL 11890/2021) as well as the decision of the Division Bench in case of Kalpataru Properties Pvt Ltd Vs Majithia Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd,[1]

15 Mr.Jagtiani is opposed by Mr.Naphade, who would submit that execution of the Development Agreement for a redevelopment project is not an idle formality but an important term of bargain. He would also rely upon the authorities cited by Mr.Jagtiani, to bolster his submission that the execution of a Development Agreement is imperative, particularly when one of the parties to the agreement is a co-operative Society comprising of several members, where consent by the majority for finalising the Development Agreement is a must, since all of them have a stake in the redevelopment process. According to Mr.Naphade, the requirement of a formal contract being executed, can be evidenced from the notice inviting tender itself and by placing on record the ‘Tender Document’, he would submit that the term ‘contract’ in the document contemplated agreement papers, details of the Company/firm, all the proforma and the tender document together with the letter of Intent and any other documents specifically indicated and culminated into the formal Development Agreement executed between the developer and Society. By relying upon clause 20 of the NIT, he submits that it was clearly stipulated that all these documents together shall be deemed to form a contract, each being a part of the other.

By relying upon clause 2.11.[2] of the bid document, contemplating that the Society after the acceptance of bid and after observance of necessary formalities shall enter into the DA with the successful bidder, who has fulfilled all the formalities/terms and conditions, it is his submission that the execution of the Development Agreement is indication of the concluded contract and not until so.

16 According to Mr.Naphade, exchange of several draft agreement between the parties and the changes effected therein, itself indicate that the contract for redevelopment is not concluded and though the parties were walking towards it, they never reached the point, where they put seal upon the negotiations. It is his specific submission that since on the crucial aspects such as building plans, lay out, flat dimensions, amenities, parking etc, the parties did not reach a consensus, then how it can said that a concluded contract for redevelopment is arrived. Mr.Naphade has placed reliance upon the decision in case of Gopi Gorwani Vs. Jeevan Prabha Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, and the decision of Heritage Lifestyle and Developers Ltd. Vs. Cool Breeze Co-operative Housing Society Ltd,2, to support his submission that execution of a DA is a final step in a redevelopment contract and if it is not signed, there can be no concluded contract, qua a redevelopment project. 2 2014(3) MhLJ 376

17 In the light of the rival submissions, it is necessary to ascertain whether on facts, the terms of the bargain were struck between the parties through negotiations, which are placed on record. Mr.Naphade would pose a question whether the project of redevelopment can take off without a development agreement and whether it is possible to construct a building in absence of the work order being issued in its favour, which shall follow the execution of development agreement.

18 Antariksh has argued that merely because the Development Agreement is not signed, would not lead to an inference that there is no concluded contract between the parties, particularly, when the revised offer letter dated 30/8/2021 and 23/10/2021 was accepted by the Society, which covered the material and commercial terms of redevelopment, including the entitlement of the total carpet for the existing members, corpus, interim compensation, transportation charges, car parking, amenities, hardship compensation etc. along with provision of bank guarantee, security deposit, EMD and also the completion period. The draft DA dated 5/1/2022 exchanged by Antariksh placed at Exhibit-G to the plaint, when carefully read is compliant with various stipulations of redevelopment of a project, as it clearly comprise of the representation, warranties and covenants, entitlement of the members including rent, brokerage, corpus and hardship compensation, the consideration offered in the wake of the grant of development rights to the developer i.e. entitlement to a flat or tenement, with a specified area along with car parting spaces as well as the Developer’s entitlement in the project. The developer’s covenants and obligations along with the retained premises, is clearly indicative of the material terms being agreed between the parties. The communication by the Society dated 31/10/2021 informing Antariksh that in the SGM of the Society, in presence of the Officer appointed by Dy. Registrar Co-operative Housing Societies, the majority of members had accepted the terms and conditions of the offer letter dated 30/8/2021 and 23/10/201 and based on the offer letters, appointing it as developer, has sealed the fate of the bargain between the two. While accepting the appointment of Antariksh as a developer, for the redevelopment project, it was agreed that the members shall sign and execute Consent letters, Development Agreement, Power of Attorney, Individual agreement, PAAA in respect of new flats and such other deed documents, as may be required for the purpose of redevelopment of the subject property and this was to be done subject to the agreed terms and conditions by various correspondences, documents etc.

19 After issuance of this letter, under the signature of the Chairman/Secretary of the Society, it appear that some of the members required certain clarifications on certain aspect and even this was sorted out by Antariksh, but it appear that some members of the Society had a change of heart and expected to have an entitlement of additional area of 50 sq.ft, which was being offered in nearby vicinity and the same being offered with no additional cost. From the email dated 8/1/2023, it is evident that the Society expressed its accord and satisfaction, since ‘Antariksh’ responded to its queries or points, placed for consideration in a positive manner and requested to seal this by a formal mail. It is only, by way of an attempt, a demand is made of an additional area and this is met with lot of resistance from Antariksh, by referring to the trail of the communications/emails exchanged between the parties and particularly, by referring to the final offer dated 30/8/2021, the revised offer dated 23/10/2021 and the letter of appointment dated 31/10/2023 and to the various meetings, which is indicative that time and again, in terms of the negotiations, the carpet area offered was raised, along with the rise in the rent, but the ultimate request to revisit the area entitlement without any cost, is not at all acceptable and it was described to be an unethical attempt on part of the Society. It was clearly intimated by Antariksh that there cannot be increase in the area without any cost but if the Society is firmly interested in its increase, then the developer will have to re-look into the agreed hardship, rent, bank guarantee and the payment schedule.

20 In Kollipara Sriramulu Vs. T. Awasthanarayan and ors[3], the principle, that a mere reference to a future formal contract will not prevent a binding bargain between the parties, was evolved and it was pronounced that the fact that the parties referred to the preparations of an agreement, by which the terms agreed upon, are to be put in a more formal shape, does not prevent the existence of a binding contract. A distinction was however, drawn in cases where reference to future contract is made in such terms, as to show that the parties did not intend to be bound, until a formal contract is signed. It was, therefore held that the answer to this question depends upon the intention of the parties and special circumstances of each particular case. The Apex Court relied upon the observations of Lord Chancellor (Lord Cranworth in Ridgway Vs. Wharton)4 and reproduced the same in the following words:- “It appears to be well settled by the authorities that if the documents or letters relied as on constituting a contract contemplate the execution of a further contract between the parties, it is a question of construction whether the execution of the further contract is a condition or term of the bargain of whether it is a mere expression of the desire of the parties as to the manner in which the transaction already agreed to will in fact go through. In the former case, there is in enforceable contract either because the condition is unfulfilled or because the law does not recognize a contract to enter into a contract. In the latter case, there is a binding contract and the reference to the more formal document may be ignored.”

4 (1854) 6 H.L.C. 238 at p. 305 21 Necessarily, the question that arises for consideration, is whether signing of the Development Agreement was necessary to infer a concluded contract and whether it was intended to be a condition of bargain or whether it was mere expression of the desire of the parties for a formal agreement to be executed. The Indian Contract Act, 1872 clearly contemplate that an agreement not enforceable by law is void and it is only an agreement which is enforceable by law and which takes shape of a contract, is binding. Before a binding contract is arrived at, the parties may enter into negotiations at pre-agreement stage and this negotiation by itself, is not an agreement but if the negotiation is in the nature of a representation that something will be done in future, as such a representation may turn into an enforceable contract, if other party to whom it is addressed, acts upon it. Such a representation may involve an existing intention to act in future in the manner represented. Freedom of negotiation is concomitant of freedom of contract. Negotiation is a well-known consensual bargaining process to reach an agreement and during its process, the parties attempt to reach agreement on a disputed or on a potentially disputed area of a transaction contemplated. Negotiations necessarily facilitates conclusion of a contract and occurs at a precontract period. Nonetheless proof of existence of a concluded contract is an essential, sine qua non of any legal action for obtaining a relief of specific performance of the contract and the concluded contract irrefutably presumes the existence of ‘ad idem’ or ‘consensus’. Negotiation is initiated with a proposal which may not necessarily be an offer, but in the process of negotiation, a proposal may mature into an offer. As a result, during negotiation, cross or counter offer may mature into acceptance. In this process, the parties involved engage themselves in the freedom of making proposals after proposing, making counter proposal, after counter proposal and these may be ‘without prejudice’. Indication that throughout the process, either parties and obligations remain unaffected as they do not intend to be bound by the offer made or the counter offer. For a contract to come into existence, there has to be acceptance of the offer on the same terms of the offer and such acceptance must be unequivocal, unconditional and absolute. An acceptance is a final and unqualified assent to the terms of the offer. In other words, nothing is left to be done for the future. It is trite position of law that a contract has three essentials viz. an offer, followed by an acceptance of the same for a consideration. Negotiations may take place either on those essentials or on all of them, depending upon the circumstances involved. Freedom of negotiations is always exercised without prejudice to the existing mutual rights and obligations of the parties involved and engaged in negotiation. In many situations, during the course of negotiations, which may begin with a proposal, it may end with a concluded contract. When parties negotiate, with a view to enter into a contract, multiple preliminary communications may pass between them, before a definite offer is made. One party may simply ask or respond to request, for information, or he may invite the other to make an offer. Between this may lie a preliminary inquiry, a statement as to price, an invitation to treat and invitation to apply, a request for bid offer or cross or counter offer. When parties carry on lengthy negotiations, it may be difficult to say exactly, when an offer has been made and accepted. As negotiations progress, each party may make concessions or new demand and the parties may, at the end disagree as to whether they had ever agreed at all. As per Chitty’s on Contract, Vol I (General Principles), in such a scenario, the Court shall look at the whole correspondence and decide whether, on its true construction, the parties had agreed to the same terms. If so, there is a contract even though both the parties or one of them had reservations not expressed in the correspondence. The Court will be particularly anxious to ascertain, whether continuing the negotiations, have resulted in a contract where the performance, which was the subject matter of the negotiations has actually been rendered. Reference is made to G. Percy Trentham Ltd vs Archital Luxfer Ltd (1993) 1 Lloyd's Rep 25, where a building sub-contract was held to have come into existence, (even though agreement had not yet reached when the contractor began work) as during its progress outstanding matters were resolved by further negotiations.

22 In various business transactions, it is very difficult to precisely state as to when the parties have reached agreement as they may continue to negotiate after they appear to have agreed to the same terms and it becomes necessary to look at the entire negotiations to decide whether an apparently unqualified acceptance did in fact, conclude the agreement and if it did, the fact that the parties continued negotiations after this point, does not affect the existence of the contract between them, unless the continued correspondence be construed as having an agreement to resign the contract. The binding force of oral contract or the exchange of communications is not affected or altered merely by the fact that, after its conclusion, one party sends to other a document, containing terms significantly differing from those which had been agreed upon them mutually. The Contracts, therefore, are often the product of lengthy communications, over the range of issues such as scope of work, price, time for completion, specification and performance criteria. While scanning the negotiations, which may be in form of communications or oral commitments, it becomes necessary to ascertain the intention of the parties, continuing upto the date of the supposed contract, to bring into a Contract and on the date of the supposed contract, to find out whether the parties had been of one mind on all the terms, which they regarded to be its essential terms and upon expressing a consensus over the same, it decided that the contract shall come into existence and shall bind the parties.

23 In Pagnan S.P.A. Vs. Feed Products Ltd, (1987) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 601, the Queens Bench Division (1987 W.L. 493430), Lord Justice Lloyd, evolved the principles for determining the existence of a concluded contract, which often arose as a perennial question and the parameters in determining so to summarized the following effect:- (1) In order to determine whether a contract has been concluded in the course of correspondence, one must first look to the correspondence as a whole. (2) Even if the parties have reached agreement on all the terms of the proposed contract, nevertheless they may intend that the contract shall not become binding until some further condition has been fulfilled. That is the ordinary ‘subject to contract’case. (3) Alternatively, they may intend that the contract shall not become binding until some further term or terms have been agreed: See love and Steward Vs. Instone, where the parties failed to agree the intended strike clause and Hussey Vs. Horne-Payne, where Lord Selborne said at page 323: “…… The observation has often been made, that a contract established by letters may sometimes bind parties who, when they wrote those letters, did not imagine that they were finally settling the terms of the agreement by which they were to be bound, and it appears to me that no such contract ought to be held established, even by letters which would otherwise be sufficient for the purpose, if it is clear, upon the facts, that there were other conditions of the intended contract, beyond and besides those expressed in the letters, which were still in a state of negotiation only, and without the settlement of which the parties had no idea of concluding any agreement” (My emphasis) (4) Conversely, the parties may intend to be bound forthwith even though there are further terms still to be agreed or some further formality to be fulfilled. (5) If the parties fail to reach agreement on such further terms, the existing contract is not invalidated unless the failure to reach agreement on such further terms renders the contract as a whole unworkable or void for uncertainty. (6) It is sometimes said that the parties must agree on the essential terms and it is only matters of detail which can be left over. This may be misleading, since the word ‘essential’ in that context is ambiguous. If by ‘essential’ one means a term without which the contract cannot be enforced then the statement is true: the law cannot enforce an incomplete contract. If by essential one means a term which the parties have agreed to be essential for the formation of a binding contract, then the statement is tautologous; If by ‘essential’ one means only a term which the Court regards as important as opposed to a term which the Court regards as less important or a matter of detail, the statement is untrue. It is for the parties to decide whether they wish to be bound and if so, by what terms, whether important or unimportant. It is the parties who are, in the memorable phrase coined by the Judge ‘the masters of their contractual fate’. Of course the more important the term is the less likely it is that the parties will have left it for future decision. But there is no legal obstacle which stands in the way of the parties agreeing to be bound now while deferring important matters to be agreed later. It happens every day when parties enter into so called ‘heads of agreement’.

24 The above principles, therefore, require an in-depth search of the agreement between the parties, on the essential terms and if it is so, then the matters of detail can be left over, for a subsequent acts of the parties. The word ‘essential terms’ necessarily is indicative of such terms, without which the contract cannot exist and it is only on an agreement on these terms, the contract is said to come into existence.

25 In the case in hand, when the correspondence exchanged between the parties is minutely looked into, it is indicative of the offer letter by Antariksh, issued to the Society and the revised offer letter dated 30/8/2021, with reference to the original offer letter dated 8/4/2021, is issued pursuant to the discussions/meetings and as finalized by the Society in it’s SGM dated 31/7/2021, by taking into consideration the plot area as per the lease deed with its existing number of members and the fact of it being under LIG, with no encumbrance on any account on its title, with a warranty by the Society that the full potential of FSI/TDR/fungible FSI/other areas under the DPCR 2034 shall be allowed to be utilized on the plot by the Society. Based upon this, an offer is extended providing each existing member 510 sq.ft MOFA carpet area in lieu of the existing area free of cost plus the corpus, interim compensation, transportation charges, hardship compensation, distinct amenities, and also the timelines for completion of the project. The offer letter was based on the information given by the Society as per the prevailing rules and regulations of MCGM/MHADA and DPCR 2034. On 20/10/2021, the offer was revised to 528 sq ft of MOFA carpet area to each member and on 21/10/2021, the Society applauded Antariksh for the new offer, but since it was not acceptable to some of its members, despite the earlier acceptance of the offer, on discussions, a counter offer comes from the Society, in the alternative of 540 sq.ft area with hardship compensation of Rs.17 lakhs or 528 sq.ft with hardship compensation of Rs. 18,50,000/-. The request was therefore, made to reconsider the earlier offer, on the premise that other Developers in Kher Nagar Colony are offering substantial additional area to the members. This resulted in Antariksh revising its offer on the material term of availability of the area to each member and the offer of 528 sq. ft. MOFA area with a lumpsum hardship allowance of Rs. 17,51,000/- is accepted. On all other terms and conditions, since there was no disagreement expressed, it is indicated that they remain unchanged. It is thus evident that on the commercial aspect of the offer, a consensus is arrived and that is the reason why in the SGM of the Society held on 24/10/2021, the majority of the members of the Society agreed to accept Antariksh along with its revised offer, as developer for carrying the redevelopment project. The communication dated 31/10/2021 is the final culmination of the negotiations, on the commercial terms when Antariksh is informed that in the presence of the officer of the Dy. accepted the terms and conditions of the offer letter dated 30/82021 and 23/10./2021 and based on these offer letters, Antariksh is appointed as a developer. As a sequel to this, it is expressed that the members shall sign and execute the consent letters, DA, PoA, individual agreement, PAAA in respect of the new flats, etc and such other deeds, documents, as may be necessary for the purpose of redevelopment of the subject property, which would be subject to the agreed terms and conditions by various correspondences, documents etc. This communication addressed to Antariksh by the Society, therefore, amounts to a final/concluded contract as the intention of the Society, could be clearly discerned from the said communication that upon the consensus being arrived on material commercial terms, execution of a development agreement would be just a formality, as there may be several other documents/deeds which required execution pursuant to the contract having been come into existence on exchange of the offer and its acceptance as well as acceptance of the revised offer by members of the Society and Antariksh.

26 The draft Development Agreements were exchanged between the parties and even the requisite clarification on being offered, on 8/1/2023, the Society after expressed its gratitude thanks to the Developer for positively resolving all the queries and proposed words variation in the material term i.e. the usable carpet area and thus, repudiated the contract, which was concluded on material terms.

27 Though Mr. Naphade has assertively argued that the essential terms are still under negotiations, however, despite persuasion, I am unable to accept his submission, as from the exchange of correspondence between the parties, it is evident that the contract was concluded on material terms and the demand of the 578 sq. ft. usable carpet area has not come by way of a clarification, during the process of negotiation, but has been raised after the negotiations are over, i.e. at the end of the concluded contract. The parties are at variance, as to what is the point when the concluded contract has come into existence, upon reading of the communications exchanged, with the material terms having been finalized, prior to 31/10/2021, when the Society confirmed the appointment of Antariksh as its developer, subject to the terms contained in the offer letter dated 30/8/2021 read with 30/10/2021, I am convinced to hold that, because some of the members were of the opinion that they are entitled for some additional area, the whole negotiation cannot be fizzled out. In a Society with huge number of members, it may not be uncommon that at one point of time, they are all together and express consensus over the offer, but a later point of time, some of them may raise a voice of disagreement or quibble over the agreed terms.

28 Since reliance is placed by both the counsel upon the decision of Justice G.S. Patel in Kalpataru Limited, it would necessarily require marshalling of the facts placed before his Lordship, which would clearly disclose that execution of the Development Agreement was considered to be the essence of the contract, as there was an LOI between the parties, under which the Kalpataru was to redevelop the Society’s property and it contemplated that there shall be a further agreement and also as to what the further agreement shall contain. Kalpataru categorically maintained that the further agreement is not finalised, as the parties have not reached consensus on it, and therefore, the question arose whether the LOI which contemplated a further agreement, ipso facto, rendered it incapable of specific performance. Contradicting the stand of Kalpataru, Society argued that there is no concluded contract between the parties and the LOI is an agreement to enter into an agreement, hence, for that reason incapable of specific performance. By referring to clause 7.22 of the General Conditions, which define the contract to cover various documents, including the formal agreement executed between the developer and Society, Justice Patel referring to Kollipara (supra) and reproducing parts of Rossier Vs. Miller, arrived at the following conclusions:- “46 The legal consequence must, therefore, logically be that the DA is an essential requirement. It is not an idle formality. The project cannot proceed without it – there is simply no agreement on what is t be built for the members’ component. If this be so, Kalpataru’s case must fail entirely. Add to this the fact that in its petition, Kalpataru expresses it willingness to complete the DA on such terms as this Court or the arbitral tribunal may decide and it is clear that the DA is not idle nice-to-have document but is of the very essence. That suggestion, incidentally, is preposterous for it is not for any court or tribunal to step into the agreement-making arena.

47 Most fundamentally, what this tells us is that there is no consensus ad-idem on an essential requirement of the contract: the form, nature and precise configuration of the members’ component. Kalpataru cannot brush this aside. The distinguishing feature of the above judgment being, absence of consensus, on the essential requirements of the contract and the form, nature and the precise configuration of the members component.

29 There can be no quarrel about the fact that execution of Development Agreement is not an idle formality, as in its absence, the fullness of the terms of the construction could not be said to be agreed, as they shall be part of the D.A and without it, there cannot be a concluded contract. However, before me is the situation, where there was exchange of the Draft of the Development Agreement between the parties, with all its terms having been agreed upon, but what remain was only the agreement being inked by the parties. For the very same reason, the Division Bench decision in case of Kalpataru Properties Pvt Ltd, is also distinguishable, as the definition of the term ‘contract’ in the tender provided for a formal agreement between the developers and the Society, and in the additional terms and conditions, the Society reserved to itself the right to amend or modify the terms of the contract, and also to add any additional terms and conditions, before signing the agreement, and that is why the Division Bench in paragraph no.24 observed that the provision clearly establishes that the execution of a formal contract, was not a mere formality, but a term of bargain between the parties and to hold otherwise, would be to deprive the Society of very important right expressly, conferred upon it by contract i.e. the right to modify the contract “before signing the agreement”. This not being the case here, I find substance in the argument of Mr. Jagtiani that once it was accepted as a Developer and having put his money on the table, now there cannot be walk out, merely at the whims and fancies of some of the members of the Society and a long drawn negotiation cannot be cast away, in such unilateral manner, only because now the Society has a change of heart. When a contract to the above effect has come into existence, by exchange of letters/correspondence, and when the same is minutely referred to, and it is noticed that a definite offer has been made which is accepted without qualification, the letter of offer and acceptance containing the terms between the parties, at the date of its acceptance, such a contract arrived at, cannot be affected by subsequent notification.

30 It is well settled position in law that once it is shown that there is complete contract which has come into existence, further negotiation between the parties cannot, without consent of both, get rid of the contract already arrived at. For the reasons recorded above, the Interim Application No. 27970 of 2023 is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) which read thus:- “(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an interim and temporary injunction against the defendant restraining the defendant, its members, representatives, nominees, and assigns/or from entering into any agreement, appointing another developer for redevelopment of the defendant’s building and/or creating any third party rights in respect of the Suit property. (b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay effect and implementation of the defendant’s letter dated 24th May 2023 and restrain the defendant and its members from acting in furtherance of the said letter dated 24th May 2023. ( SMT.

BHARATI DANGRE, J.)