A.S. Chandurkar, J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the original plaintiff -Company which is aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court rejecting its Notice of Motion and refusing to grant the prayers made therein.
(2.) It is the case of the original plaintiff that it is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is carrying on business of construction and development of properties. The suit property is Municipal Colony consisting of Building No.4/12, of ground and three upper floors (224 Flats) situated at R.A. Kidwai Road, Wadala, Mumbai 400 031, admeasuring approximately 1077989 sq. meters (2.6 Acres). The suit property is owned by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. It is pleaded that the same comprises of about 14 buildings which are occupied by various tenants of the Municipal Corporation. The said tenants proposed to form a housing Society which is defendant No.1. According to the plaintiff, the said proposed Society intended to redevelop the suit property and on that basis, the plaintiff submitted its Feasibility Report. After considering the same, the matter progressed and there was exchange of various communications between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1. The defendant No1.-Society, thereafter, appointed PGV Project Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd. as the Project Management Consultant (PMC). It also submitted its report. On 31st March 2014, the plaintiff contends that a Development Agreement as well as a document of Irrevocable Power of Attorney was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1-Society. The same was duly notarized. There were again subsequent communications between the parties and the plaintiff claims to have incurred expenditure of Rs.70 Lakhs towards the re-development of the property. The plaintiff learnt that the Society along with the Director of the PMC were however trying to deprive it of its rights. Apprehending the same and on learning that the Society was looking for another developer, the plaintiff filed suit seeking a declaration that the Development Agreement as well as the document with regard to grant of Irrevocable Power of Attorney, both dated 31st March 2014, were legal and valid and were binding on the defendant No.1. An injunction was sought seeking to restrain the defendant No.1-Society from entering into any fresh agreement with a new developer for re-development of the property. In that suit, the plaintiff moved a Notice of Motion praying that during the pendency of the suit, the society be restrained from entering into any agreement with another developer.
(3.) Reply was filed by the defendant Nos.1 to 7, 10 and 11 to the said Notice of Motion. It was denied that there was any agreement between the parties as pleaded by the plaintiff. There was mere exchange of correspondence between the parties. It was denied that any Development Agreement or document of Irrevocable Power of Attorney, dated 31st March 2014 was executed between the parties. It was further pleaded that in absence of any resolution of the General Body of the Society, no such Development Agreement or document of Irrevocable Power of Attorney could have been executed. Thus, according to the said defendants, in absence of any concluded contract, the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief whatsoever.;