Last update:
The court was dealing with a civil appeal presented by Neha Chandrakant Shroff and another, challenging the order of the Superior Bombay Court dated April 30, 2024
The court said that in such a situation, ask the recurring to file a lawsuit and recover possession would be like adding insult to the injuries.
The Supreme Court recently observed that the constitutional powers forced in the upper courts or the Supreme Court cannot be fetterized by the mere existence of an alternative remedy. It was emphasized that injustice, every time it happens, must be considered as anatema of the rule of law and the provisions of the Constitution.
A bank comprising JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan stressed that the exclusion rule of written jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not compulsion.
“There may be many contingencies in which the Superior Court can be justified by exercising its jurisdiction to writing despite the availability of an alternative remedy,” said the bank.
The Court was dealing with a civil appeal presented by Neha Chandrakant Shroff and another, challenging the order of the Superior Court of Bombay dated April 30, 2024. The Superior Court had dismissed its request for writing, which requested instructions for the release of two floors of South Mumbai that had been occupied by the Police Department since 1940.
The bank, when ordering respondents to deliver the possession of the floors to the recurring, observed: “We are happy that we have to be able to do justice with the recurring who have bone frantically trying to recover their property in the question of and what a question in the question in the question in the question of the two. Lease asked in writing.”
The Apex court pointed out that the Superior Court seemed hesitant in exercising its written jurisdiction, apparently due to a misunderstanding with respect to the nature of possession. The Superior Court had concluded that the possession was permissive and, in that basic, considered appropriate to relegate the recurring to seek the alternative remedy of submitting a civil lawsuit.
“The Superior Court should have taken into account the year, that is, 1940. This country was governed by the British. The country was fighting hard to seek the independence of the British. Bombay in 1940 was completely differentiated.
He noted that, at the relevant time, the department may have persuaded the recurring or their presses in the title to separate from the possession of the two floors in the favorite of the Police Department.
“However, he is now 84 years since the Police Department has been in the occupation and use of the two floors. Look at the conduct of the department. We are informed that during the last eighteen years, he simply does not run the payment of the leg,” said the bank.
The court said that in such a situation, ask the recurring to file a lawsuit and recover possession would be like adding insult to the injuries.
“At this time, if the appellants are asked to institute a demand, we ask ourselves how many years would take for when the litigation would come to an end if it reaches the highest height. These toke are in the ups and downs in the hard events, today’s times,” said the bank.
This is one of those cases in which the Superior Court should easily exercise its written jurisdiction, the bank emphasized.
Duration its personal appearance, Nitin Pawar, a police officer, police commissioner office (headquarters), Mumbai, had informed the Apex court that two policemen currently resided in the two floors in question.
As the floors in question were not being used as offices by the department, the bank, on January 28, 2025, suggested that the parties meet and try to solve the friendly dispute.
Then, the bank ordered that if the respondents wanted to retain possession, they must sign a lease with the rent according to the market value. This would be without a preacher for the challenge of the petitioners to the sentence of the higher courts. The Bank also pointed out that after about 80 years of occupation, the Police Department could easily relocate, allowing petitioners to recover possession of their property.
Subsequently, on March 3, 2025, the bank indicated that the petitioners proposed the following options: the State can retain the facilities paying the market rental to the current date; The State can buy the property directly; Or the State must deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the property.
The court determined that the response of the respondents to the three proposals was not substantive.
“In such circumstances, we no longer need to listen to the parties in any other matter. We leave the contested sentence approved by the Superior Court and allow the original writing request preferred by the recurring before the Superior Court,” the bank said.
The Court granted four months to the respondents at hand on vacant and peaceful possession of both floors in question to the recurring along with the accumulated rental arrears until the date of delivering the possession of the two floors.
“We are informed that the department has not paid the leg races since 2008 onards. The rent will be calculated accordingly and the recurring will be paid,” the bank said.
The court also ordered the Deputy Police Commissioner to present a company in Oathin a week stating that the department would deliver the vacant and peaceful possession of the two floors in question definitely to the recurring within a period of four months.
