Bombay High Court

ALPERTON DEVELOPERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusVISHNU SWAMI LOKARE

Decided: 1 September 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The appellate court quashed the trial court's interim injunction order as it was passed without regard to the binding Division Bench order.

Summary

Alperton Developers & Contractors Pvt Ltd appealed against an interim injunction granted by the Bombay City Civil Court that prevented it from dispossessing Vishnu Swami Lokare from his premises. The appellant argued that the trial court erred by not considering a Division Bench order dated 10 July 2026, which recorded a settlement whereby all 92 members of the Bhim Nagar SRA society, including Respondent No.1, undertook to vacate their premises within four weeks. The appellate court found that the trial court indeed failed to take this order into account and wrongly concluded that dispossession would cause irreparable loss. Consequently, the appellate court quashed the interim injunction and directed the trial court to decide the pending notice of motion in light of the Division Bench findings. The appeal was allowed and the interim application disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court erred in granting an interim injunction without considering the Division Bench order dated 10 July 2026.
Whether Respondent No.1 is bound by the minutes of order to vacate the premises within the stipulated period.
Whether the injunction causes irreparable loss justifying its grant.
Whether the interim order should be set aside in view of the SRA scheme’s progress.

Subjects

Slum Rehabilitation Authority
interim injunction
vacate premises
PAA agreement
rent increase
appellate jurisdiction
order quashed

Judgment

Digitally
signed by 901-AO-897-26.DOC
MEERA
MEERA MAHESH
MAHESH JADHAV
JADHAV Date:
2026.09.01
19:22:19
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.897 OF 2026

Alperton Developers & Contractors Pvt Ltd. ..Appellant
Vs.
Vishnu Swami Lokare & Anr ...Respondents

WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6875 OF 2026

----------
Mr. Rohan Cama, A/w Mr. Chirag Kamdar, Ms Jasmine Kachala, Mr. Brian
Noronha and Mr. Vikram Krishnan i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co. for Appellant.
Ms Yashi Bhatt i/b Ravleen Sabharwal for Respondent-SRA.
Mr. Vishnu Lokare-Respondent No.1 present in person.
-----------

CORAM: AARTI A. SATHE, J.
DATED: 1st SEPTEMBER 2026

P.C.

1. This Appeal from Order has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1, taking

exception to the order dated 22 nd August 2026 read with order dated 25 th

August 2026 passed by the Hon’ble Bombay City Civil Court in draft Notice

of Motion filed in S.C. Suit No.1930 of 2026. By way of the aforesaid

impugned order, the Trial Court granted ad-interim relief against the

Appellant from dispossessing Respondent No.1 from his premises until 25 th

August 2026 and the next date of hearing of the Notice of Motion is

scheduled on 8th September 2026.

2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the

said order has been passed erroneously without taking into consideration

Page 1 of 7
Meera Jadhav
901-AO-897-26.DOC

the facts of the present matter, whereby the Respondent No.1, who is one of

the 92 members of the Society Bhim Nagar SRA CHS Ltd., Jerbai Wadia

Road, Patel, Mumbai-400012, had entered into a settlement which is

recorded by the Minutes of Order, which form part of the order dated 10 th

July 2026 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. The challenge in that

petition was to an order dated 30 th June 2026 passed by Deputy Collector,

SRA, Mumbai, wherein the Appellant was directed execute PAAA agreement

with the 92 members including Respondent No.1, who was part of the

Bhimnagar CHS. The said Petition was disposed of by an order dated 10 th

July 2026 in light of the minutes of the order, which form part of the

aforesaid order. The order alongwith the Minutes of Order are reproduced

below:

1. Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner, learned Advocate for
Respondent No.5, learned Advocate for Respondents-SRA and learned
Addl.G.P. for Respondent-State.

2. There is challenge to the order dared 30th June 2026 passed the
Deputy Colllector (Special Cell), Slum Rehabilitation Authority
Mumbai City. There is further Writ of Mandamus sought against the
Respondent No.5 to execute the registered Permanent Alternate
Accommodation Agreements ("PAA Agreements"). There is also
grievance about payment of transit rent at market rates.

3. During pendency of the Petition, both the contesting parties have
arrived at a settlement in respect of the payment of transit rent,
handing over the possession, deciding the eligibility by the appropriate
authority and Petitioner raising grievance about enhanced transit rent,
if any and about the transit accommodation before the appropriate
authority. In view of that, they have tendered unsigned minutes of the
order on record. It is marked as Annexure-X.

4. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the light of those minutes of the
order. It is made clear that the assurance recorded in the minutes are
considered as an undertaking given to the Court.

Page 2 of 7
Meera Jadhav
901-AO-897-26.DOC

MINUTES OF ORDER

The Order dated 30th June 2026 passed by Deputy Collector, SRA is
modified as follows:

“1. The Petitioner society along with the 92 members (who are listed in
the Order dated 30th June 2026 passed by Deputy Collector, SRA)
undertake to vacate their existing premises/structures within four
weeks from this date, i.e., on or before 7th August 2026. In the
meanwhile, the 92 members of the Petitioner society will occupy their
existing premises/structures, at their own risks and consequences and
Respondent No.5 and the statutory authorities shall not be held liable
for any untoward consequences arising therefrom.

2. In the event the 92 members of the Petitioner society do not vacate
their existing premises/structures within the aforesaid period, the
Slum Rehabilitation Authority shall take all necessary steps to evict the
members of the Petitioner society/residents from their existing
premises/structures and cause their demolition, with necessary police
protection.

3. Respondent No. 5 will comply with the individual agreements
entered into by Omkar Realtors and Developers Private Limited (being
the erstwhile developer under the Amnesty Scheme) with the eligible
slum dwellers, save and except to the extent of the following:

(a) the area of the rehabilitation tenement that will be constructed by
Respondent No. 5 will stand increased from 225 square feet to 300
square feet carpet area;

(b) the rent payable by Respondent No. 5 shall stand increased from
Rs.6000/- per month to Rs.15,000/- per month along with increments
in rent as per norms of SRA. The Petitioner society is at liberty to
approach appropriate forum to agitate remedy in relation to their
demand for increment of rent and/or transit accommodation in
accordance with law. All rights and contentions of the parties in this
regard are kept open.

4. The appropriate authorities be directed to decide the eligibility of
the members of the Petitioner society who are presently declared
ineligible as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within a
period of 6 months from the date hereof.

5. The Petitioner society and its members shall cooperate with SRA and
Respondent No. 5 in regard to the above.”

Page 3 of 7
Meera Jadhav
901-AO-897-26.DOC

3. It is clear from clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Minutes of the Order that out

of 92 members including Respondent No.1 had undertaken to vacate their

existing premises / structures within four weeks from 10 th July 2026. The

aforesaid Minutes of Order have also noted that the SRA shall take all

necessary steps to evict the members and residents and cause demolition

with necessary police protection. It is further noted that Appellant would

comply with the individual agreements entered into by Omkar Realtors and

Developers Private Limited, save and except to the extent of the following:

“(a) the area of the rehabilitation tenement that will be constructed by
Respondent No. 5 will stand increased from 225 square feet to 300
square feet carpet area;

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that out

of 92 members, 91 members have already vacated the said premises and

also the PAAA agreements as contemplated in minutes of order with 91

members stand confirmed. It is therefore, his submission that the Trial

Court erred in not considering the aforesaid order passed by the Division

Bench of this Court and has erroneously granted ad-interim protection to

Respondent No.1, who was also in fact bound by the Minutes of Order,

which form part of the order dated 10th July 2026.

Page 4 of 7
Meera Jadhav
901-AO-897-26.DOC

5. Respondent No.1 is represented by his Advocate, however, in the later

session, Respondent No.1’s relatives have today appeared in person and the

Advocate has submitted that he has no instructions to appear in the

aforesaid matter. They have submitted that they have a quarrel about the

transit rent amount which has been offered to them and hence are not

willing to vacate the premises. It is pertinent to note that in the minutes of

order, clause 3(b) has specifically stipulated that Bhim Nagar CHS Ltd., is at

liberty to approach appropriate forum to agitate remedy in relation to their

demand for increment of rent and/or transit accommodation in accordance

with law.

6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the

Bhim Nagar CHS Ltd. has already moved AGRC, the authority under the

Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) in respect of enhancement of the

transit rent and the matter has been heard and orders thereon are reserved.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submits that the order dated 10 th

July 2026 passed by the Division Bench of this Court was also not placed

before the Trial Court prior to passing of the impugned order dated 22 nd

August 2026 / 25th August 2026. He, therefore, submits that the ad-interim

relief granted in favour of the Respondents has been granted by the Trial

Court without appreciating the facts of the case and therefore the impugned

order ought to be quashed and set aside.

Page 5 of 7
Meera Jadhav
901-AO-897-26.DOC

7. Having heard the parties and considering the aforesaid submissions, I

am of the view that the Trial Court without having benefit of the order of

this Court dated 10th July 2026 has erroneously come to the view that if

Respondent No.1 would be dispossessed, irreparable loss would be caused

to him. In view thereof, Trial Court proceeded to grant ad-interim

injunction and restricted the Appellant from dispossessing Respondent No.1

from existing premises / structure. It is informed that the entire SRA

scheme is particularly in respect of the existing premises / structure of Bhim

Nagar CHS of which Respondent No.1 is a part, is at much advanced stage

and only on account of non vacation of Respondent No.1 from the existing

premises / structure, the SRA scheme is delayed. Therefore, I am of the

view that the order of the Trial Court requires to be set aside as it has not

considered the order of the Division Bench of this Court, whereby

Respondent No.1 was bound to vacate the existing premises / structures.

8. In view thereof, this Appeal from Order is allowed in the aforesaid

terms.

ORDER

(i) The impugned order dated 22nd August 2026 is hereby quashed and

set aside.

(ii) Trial Court to decide the Notice of Motion on the next date of hearing,

i.e., 8th September 2026, considering the findings in this order. No

Page 6 of 7
Meera Jadhav
901-AO-897-26.DOC

adjournments to be sought by either parties at the time of hearing of the

Notice of Motion.

9. Appeal from order accordingly stands disposed off.

10. In view of the disposal of the Appeal from Order, interim application

does not survive and accordingly stands disposed off.

(AARTI A. SATHE, J.)

Page 7 of 7
Meera Jadhav

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…