Bombay HC Rejects Oberoi Realty Plea Against Goregaon Housing Society Suit
The Bombay High Court has rejected an interim application filed by Oberoi Realty Ltd seeking the dismissal of a commercial suit brought by Exquisite Co-operative Housing Society Ltd in Goregaon East, ruling that the suit genuinely contemplates urgent interim relief.
Justice Sandeep Marne issued the order on August 21, dismissing the developer's application with costs. Oberoi Realty had argued that the housing society and three flat purchasers failed to comply with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, which mandates pre-litigation mediation before instituting a commercial suit unless urgent interim relief is contemplated.
The underlying dispute involves the society’s claimed rights in the larger layout of the Exquisite residential project. The society claims a 25.33 percent undivided share in the land, along with corresponding rights in Floor Space Index (FSI) and Transferable Development Rights (TDR).
The society alleged that ongoing construction by the developer could consume its share of the land and FSI. In its suit, the society sought the conveyance of its share or, alternatively, compensation amounting to Rs 500 crore.
Oberoi Realty contended that the society's plea of urgency was merely a disguise to bypass the statutory mediation requirement. Counsel for the developer argued that there was no genuine urgency because the suit was filed in March 2023, while the interim relief application was not moved for around two-and-a-half years.
The society maintained that construction was actively continuing and that its FSI was being utilized, submitting that the plaint and interim application demonstrated a continuing cause of action and a need to protect its rights.
Justice Marne observed that the court must examine the plaint and accompanying documents holistically to determine whether urgent interim relief was genuinely contemplated. The court noted that urgency must be evaluated from the plaintiff's standpoint and within the context of the dispute and reliefs sought.
The court held that a prayer for interim relief cannot be treated as a camouflage simply because the relief may ultimately not be granted. Justice Marne also ruled that post-filing conduct cannot determine whether urgency existed when the suit was filed, observing that ongoing construction by the developer meant the need for interim protection continued.
The high court concluded that mere delay in seeking interim relief does not justify presuming an absence of real urgency, finding that the suit clearly contemplated urgent interim relief rather than an attempt to bypass Section 12A.
