Law Insider India

Legal News, Current Trends and Legal Insight | Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Flat buyers Raise a Plea in Bombay HC Against the Building Constructed By Raymond Ltd & Gautam Singhania

2 min read

Shashwati Chowdhury

Published on: June 22, 2022 at 17:27 IST

The Bombay High Court has upheld certain amendments to a suit brought against Raymond Ltd. and its chairman Gautam Singhania, as a relief for the flat buyers of one of the two buildings built by the company in the 1960s and 1970s. The amendments to the plaint deal with Raymond’s alleged failure to obtain an occupation certificate (OC) after waiting 50 years, the failure to execute a conveyance or lease deed in the plaintiff society’s favour, access to the common terrace, and restrictions using in the garden.

Justice Anuja Prabhudessai held that the amendments were not malafide or irrelevant and did not cause any prejudice to Singhania. In actuality, they were “relevant to decide the controversy between the parties.”

The flat buyers alleged that the Singhania had constructed certain structures, blocked access and converted the recreational area for their own use. And a clause stating that the common terrace on Plot B will belong to the company and that buyers will have no rights to it was incorporated to the agreement with “malafide intent.”

According to Raymond’s Counsel Shyam Devani, directed by AZB & Partners, flat buyers were claiming that certain P clauses in their agreements were void, despite the fact that these agreements had been in their possession since 1976. The amendments were barred by limitations because the trial had already started in November 2014 and 12 years had passed since the filing.

On the other side, Attorney AN Narula, who represents apartment buyers, submitted that the proposed amendment solely aimed to elaborate the members’ suffering or inconvenience. Additionally, he argued that Raymond’s petition was not maintainable.

The Court rejected Raymond’s arguments regarding the limitation on amendments, noting that order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, which governs pleading amendments, empowers the court to order amendments at any time as long as they are necessary to resolve the actual issue in dispute between the parties. Justice Prabhudessai stated that the proviso to the clause would not bar the court as the trial hadn’t begun.

NALSAR COURSE AD LAW INSIDER