- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Krishnadevi P. Gupta v. Banwarilal Hanumanprasad Tibrewala
Factual and Procedural Background
On October 5, 1973, a dispute arose between the Highway Rose Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (respondent No. 3) and Krishna Devi P. Gupta (petitioner No. 1) on one side, and Banwarilal Tibrewala (respondent No. 2) on the other. The dispute concerned the eviction of Banwarilal Tibrewala, whom the Co-operative Society alleged was an unauthorized occupant of premises belonging to the Society. The matter was referred under Sections 91 to 96 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, to the District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Bombay, who further referred it to the Officer on Special Duty for adjudication.
While the matter was pending before the Officer on Special Duty, Tibrewala filed a declaratory suit (R.A Declaratory suit stamp No. 1386 of 1974) in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, seeking a declaration that he was a monthly tenant of the disputed premises. He also applied for an injunction restraining the Society and Gupta from proceeding with the arbitration case before the Officer on Special Duty. An ad interim injunction was granted by the Small Causes Court on February 11, 1974. This injunction order was challenged by Krishnadevi Gupta and Manjudevi Gupta in the present revision application.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Small Causes Court had jurisdiction to grant an ad interim injunction restraining the parties from proceeding with the matter before the Officer on Special Duty under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
- Whether the injunction granted by the Small Causes Court was contrary to the principles laid down under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, and the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Udyog Mandir Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Contessa Knit Wear, 76 Bom LR 735 : AIR 1975 Bom 158 | Judicial amity requires that a Small Causes Court should not grant injunction restraining proceedings before an Officer on Special Duty under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act; injunctions should not be granted to prevent multiplicity of proceedings if no injury is caused. | Held that the Small Causes Court acted contrary to this precedent in granting the ad interim injunction restraining proceedings before the Officer on Special Duty. |
| Bapusaheb Balasaheb Patil v. The State Of Maharashtra, 76 Bom LR 455 : AIR 1975 Bom 143 (Full Bench) | Officer on Special Duty under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is a court in the eye of law and is not subordinate to the Small Causes Court. | Supported the conclusion that the Small Causes Court lacked jurisdiction to grant injunction against proceedings before the Officer on Special Duty. |
| Civil Revision Application No. 417 of 1974 (Bom), November 25, 1974 (Kantawala, C.J.) | Reaffirmed the principle that injunctions should not be granted by the Small Causes Court restraining matters before the Officer on Special Duty. | Affirmed setting aside of injunction granted by the Small Causes Court, reinforcing the legal position applied in the present case. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed the jurisdictional scope and interplay between the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, the Bombay Rents Act, and the Specific Relief Act. It relied on the precedent that an Officer on Special Duty exercising powers under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is considered a court in the eye of law and is not subordinate to the Small Causes Court. Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act prohibits granting injunctions restraining a person from prosecuting judicial proceedings in a court not subordinate to the court granting the injunction.
The Court found that the Small Causes Court acted without jurisdiction in granting an ad interim injunction restraining the parties from proceeding with the arbitration before the Officer on Special Duty. It emphasized judicial amity and the avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings, noting that proceedings before the Officer on Special Duty are normally concluded earlier than suits in the Small Causes Court. Thus, the injunction was inappropriate and contrary to established legal principles.
Holding and Implications
The Court set aside the ad interim injunction granted by the Small Causes Court and allowed the revision application with costs.
The direct effect of this decision is that the parties are permitted to proceed with the arbitration before the Officer on Special Duty without restraint from the Small Causes Court. No new precedent was established; the Court reaffirmed existing legal principles concerning jurisdiction and injunctions in overlapping statutory frameworks.
1. On October 5, 1973, the dispute between the Highway Rose Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., who is respondent No. 3 in the above Civil Revision Application and Krishna Devi P. Gupta petitioner No. 1 on the one side and Banwarilal Tibrewala who is respondent No. 2 in the above petition on the other was referred under Sections 91 to 96 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, to the District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Bombay. In that dispute the Co-operative Society prayed for eviction of Banwarilal Tibrewala on the ground that he was an unauthorised occupant of the premises which are part of the building belonging to the Society. The dispute was in due course referred by the District Deputy Registrar to the Officer on Special Duty for adjudication.
2. During the pendency of the matter before the Officer on special duty Tibrewala filed R.A Declaratory suit stamp No. 1386 of 1974, in the Court of Small Causes, at Bombay, claiming a declaration that he was the monthly tenant of the premises in dispute. He also applied for an injunction restraining the society and Gupta from proceeding with the Arbitration Case No. ABM 1735 of 1973 before the Officer on Special duty. On that application an ad interim injunction was passed by a Judge of the Small Causes Court on February 11, 1974. The said order is challenged in the above revision application by the petitioners Krishnadevi Gupta and Manjudevi Gupta who are defendants 2 and 1 respectively in the suit in the Small Cause Court.
3. In Udyog Mandir Premises Co operative Society Ltd. v. Contessa Knit Wear, 76 Bom LR 735 : (AIR 1975 Bom 158) it was laid down by this Court,
“In the context of jurisdiction arising under two special Acts, viz. the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, Section 91 and the Bomaby Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 28, judicial amity and wisdom require that when a matter is pending before an officer on Special Duty under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, a Judge of the Small Cause Court should not grant an injunction res training the parties from proceeding with that matter. An interim injunction can be granted to prevent an injury or mul tiplicity of proceedings but there cannot be any injury if proceedings go on before the officer on Special Duty as they are normally bound to end earlier than the suit in the Small Cause Court.
Even assuming that the suit is maintainable under Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act and the Judge of the Small Cause Court has powers to grant an injunction he should not, having regard to Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which should guide the Court in dealing with interim injunction applications, grant such an injunction.” In view of the decision it is clear that the Judge of the Small Cause Court acted contrary to the decision of this Court in granting ad interim injunction.
4. Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, lays down that an injunction cannot be granted to restrain any person from prosecuting a judicial proceeding in a Court not subordinate to the Court from which the injunction is sought. It is also well established that an Officer on Special Duty exercising powers under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, is a court in the eye of law, as held by the Full Bench of this Court in Bapusaheb Balasaheb Patil v. The State Of Maharashtra*, 76 Bom LR 455 : (AIR 1975 Bom 143) (FB). He is not a Court subordinate to the Small Cause Court. It is therefore patent that the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court acted without jurisdiction in ordering an ad interim injunction against the petitioners from proceeding with the case before the Officer on Special Duty.
5. Kantawala, C.J, has affirmed this view in Civil Revision Application No. 417 of 1974 on November 25, 1974 (Bom) observing as follows:
“In more than one matter I have fol lowed the decision of Vaidya, J., referred to above i.e, (the aforesaid Udyog Mandir's case). I set aside the injunction granted by the Small Cause Court at Bombay restraining the party from proceeding with the matter before the officer on Special Duty. In view of the same position in law the interim injunction granted by the Small Cause Court at Bombay is vacated………”
6. In the result, following the above decisions, I set aside the impugned order of the Small Causes Court in the present case, dated February 11, 1974, and make the rule absolute with costs.
7. Application allowed.
Alert