CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED v. THE WESTERN EDGE II PREMISES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED THR. AUTHORIZED MR. NITIN KAJALKAR
Landowner Granting Limited Development Rights with Express FSI Reservation is Not a "Promoter" Under MOFA; Bare Injunction Suit Barred Without Seeking Declaratory Relief Where Title is Disputed.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:13204
Decision Date: 17-03-2026
List of Laws
Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Specific Relief Act, 1963; Principle of Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet; Property Law - Floor Space Index (FSI) and Transferable Development Rights (TDR)
- Facts: The Appellant (Owner) granted limited development rights to Respondent No. 2 (Developer) for a specific portion (31,323 sq. mtrs.) of a larger land parcel. The Development Agreements and subsequent Agreements for Sale with flat purchasers expressly capped the Developer's FSI at 59,157 sq. mtrs. and reserved all balance/additional FSI/TDR for the Owner. After the project was completed in 2012, the Municipal Corporation issued notices in 2019 regarding unauthorized construction by the Society (Respondent No. 1). Following failed negotiations to purchase additional FSI from the Owner to regularize these violations, the Society filed a suit for a bare injunction to restrain the Owner from utilizing its reserved FSI or developing the remaining land, claiming the Owner was a "promoter" under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA).
- Procedural Posture: The Trial Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the Society. The Owner challenged this order before the Bombay High Court under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
- Issue: Whether a landowner who grants limited development rights to an independent developer while reserving balance FSI can be classified as a "promoter" under Section 2(c) of MOFA, and whether a suit for bare injunction is maintainable when the plaintiff's title to the FSI is disputed and contradicted by contract.
- Holding: No; the Owner is not a promoter. The suit for bare injunction without seeking a declaration of title/rights is not maintainable.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that "causing construction" under Section 2(c) of MOFA requires active entrepreneurial involvement, which the Owner lacked, as the Developer bore all risks and costs. Since the Owner was not a promoter, the statutory obligations under Section 7 (prior consent for alterations) did not apply. Furthermore, the FSI reservation was specifically disclosed to and accepted by flat purchasers, satisfying the disclosure norms. Applying the principle of "nemo dat quod non habet", the Developer could not transfer more FSI than it possessed. Legally, the Court found the suit to be an abuse of process used as a pressure tactic. Under the principles of T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy, a bare injunction suit cannot stand when a "cloud" exists over the title; therefore, the Court exercised suo motu powers under Order VII Rule 11(d) to reject the plaint.
🔒 For Members Only