P. Sathasivam, J. - (1.) Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions. Both these appeals were heard together as they arose out of the same set of facts and common questions of law were involved.
(2.) SLP (C) No. 22276 of 2011 has been filed by the Makers Development Services Pvt. Ltd. against the order dated 28.06.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 280 of 2008 challenging the order dated 25.04.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Notice of Motion No. 3499 of 2007 in Suit No. 2618 of 2007 declining the reliefs claimed in prayer clauses (a) to (f) pending final disposal of the Suit and SLP (C) No. 25972 of 2011 has been filed by M. Visvesvaraya Industrial Research and Development Centre against the same order in Appeal No. 289 of 2008 in Notice of Motion No. 3499 of 2007 in Suit No. 2618 of 2007 granting relief in terms of prayer Clause (g).
(3.) Brief facts: a. Makers Development Services Pvt. Ltd.-the Appellant herein (Original Plaintiff) is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of development, building, including the construction and management of hotels and developments pertaining to other hospitality services and management of properties. M. Visvesvaraya Industrial Research and Development Centre-the Respondent herein (Original Defendant) is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged, inter alia, in promoting, establishing, conducting and undertaking scientific research. b. The Government of Maharashtra, by Resolutions dated 16.10.1970 and 18.11.1974, had granted lease of certain plots of land to the Defendant-Company at Backbay Reclamation, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai, who was entitled and authorized to enter into transactions with third parties in respect of the said land. A portion of that land admeasuring 13,326 sq. mts. which forms a part of the larger land held by the Defendant Company is the subject-matter of the present case. c. An agreement dated 10.11.1980 was entered into between the parties for construction of a composite hotel complex consisting of a Hotel Building, a Convention Centre and an Exhibition Centre on the Suit Land (Tower No. 2) and the Plaintiff would be granted lease of Hotel (exclusive of the Convention and Exhibition Centre) for 60 years with an option of renewal of lease. This agreement came to be modified from time to time. d. Pursuant to the Agreement, the Respondent put the Appellant in possession of the Suit Land on 16.07.1990, which continues to remain with the Appellant till date. e. Since the Appellant could not complete the work and due to disputes and differences, the Respondent, on 31.07.2007, affixed a notice on the premises notifying all concerned including the Appellant to move out of the property and instructed its security persons not to permit the Appellant to enter upon the said property. f. On 04.08.2007, the Appellant filed a suit for injunction before the City Civil Court, Mumbai seeking interim and final reliefs restraining the Respondent from taking any illegal steps. By order dated 06.08.2007, the learned Judge held that till the substantive suit is filed by the Appellant, the impugned notice dated 31.07.2007 will not be acted upon by the Defendants up to and inclusive of 17.09.2007. g. On 10.09.2007, the Appellant moved a Notice of Motion No. 3499 of 2007 in a Suit being No. 2618 of 2007 before the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court for a decree of specific performance, inter alia, praying for a permanent injunction restraining the Respondent from dispossessing the Appellant. By ad-interim order dated 14.09.2007, the assurance given in the City Civil Court was directed to be observed and the Respondent was directed not to create any third party rights pending the Notice of Motion. During the pendency of the suit, by letter dated 19.11.2007, the Respondent terminated the said Agreement. The learned single Judge, after referring the documents and affidavits on record, rejected prayer Clauses (a) to (f) of the Notice of Motion and granted limited interim relief with regard to prayer Clause (g) in favour of the Appellant. h. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the Appellant preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 280 of 2008 before the Division Bench of the High Court. With regard to the limited relief granted by the learned single Judge, the Respondent also filed an appeal being Appeal No. 289 of 2008 before the Division Bench of the High Court. i. The Division Bench, by a common judgment, upheld the order of the learned single Judge and dismissed both the appeals. Challenging the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, the Appellant and the Respondent filed separate special leave petitions before this Court. ;