CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 1995 › Lumbini Nagar Cop. Housing Socy.ltd &ors v. Union of India .

Lumbini Nagar Cop. Housing Socy.ltd &ors v. Union of India .

Supreme Court of India · 17 August 1995

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
17 August 1995
Case no.
C.A. No. 7896 of 1995
Bench
Ramaswamy, K.
Length
2 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

PETITIONER:
LUMBINI NAGAR COOP. HOUSINGSOCIETY LTD. AND OTHERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT17/08/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
JT 1995 (6) 623 1995 SCALE (5)159

ACT

HEADNOTE

JUDGMENT

ORDER

Leave granted.

Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on July 28, 1995 and the order dated August 11, 1995, affidavit has been filed in which it has categorically been stated that out of 169 original allottees, 57 are employees of respondent No. 2 and are described as departmental employees. Out of 112 other allottees, 9 allottees were given notice under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Remaining 103 persons are the original allottees who are still in occupation of their respective tenaments with their families. They neither sold nor transferred their tenaments and they are continuing to reside in the respective tenaments even till date.

Mr. Nambiar, learned senior counsel for the respondents, has stated across the bar that no action is being taken against any person other than the nine allottees who are said to have parted with their right to remain in possession of their respective tenaments. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that these 9 allottees, though have entered into agreements to sell their properties, the same is subject matter of the pending suit in the High Court. Therefore, their possession cannot be disturbed.

Since the High Court, both the Learned Judge as well as the Division Bench, was not inclined to grant injunction as sought for, we are not persuaded to take a different view in that behalf. Injunction being a discretionary order, the High Court has refused to exercise the discretion in favour of the nine persons. Under these circumstances, we do not deem it expedient under Article 136 to upset the order of the High Court.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

Ask CaseMinister about Lumbini Nagar Cop. Housing Socy.ltd &ors v. Union of India .

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp