Supreme Court Restores Civil Suit in Property Dispute: Aviation Travels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bhavesha Suresh Goradia
The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling on March 2, 2020, set aside the Bombay High Court’s decision and restored the civil suit in a long-standing property dispute involving Aviation Travels Pvt. Ltd. and Bhavesha Suresh Goradia. The Court allowed the appellant to contest the case afresh, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and ensuring that substantive justice prevails.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a suit filed in 1994 by Bhavesha Suresh Goradia (Respondent No.1) before the Bombay High Court against Aviation Travels Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) and other defendants, including trustees and beneficiaries of the Parikh Goradia Trust. The suit sought a permanent injunction and compensation of Rs.1 crore for alleged trespass, nuisance, and damages caused to the trust property.
At the heart of the dispute was an agreement dated October 6, 1978, wherein the trust had agreed to sell a portion of its property to Aviation Travels Pvt. Ltd. The property was subsequently leased to Woodland Garden Cafe for a period of ten years. The respondent alleged that during repairs and renovations in 1992, the appellant caused unauthorized damage to the trust property.
Legal Proceedings
Ex-Parte Decree Against the Appellant
- The High Court, in an ex-parte judgment dated October 7, 2003, decreed the suit against the appellant and ordered payment of Rs.77,02,500/- with interest, along with permanent and mandatory injunctions.
- The appellant claimed that it was never served summons and was unaware of the proceedings.
- The decree remained unchallenged for several years until the appellant filed a Notice of Motion in 2018 seeking to set aside the ex-parte judgment.
Rejection of Notice of Motion and Appeal
- The Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dismissed the Notice of Motion in April 2018, stating that an advocate had represented the appellant in the original suit.
- The Division Bench of the High Court upheld this ruling, emphasizing that the appellant had engaged a lawyer and had entered appearance in the case.
- A Review Petition filed by the appellant was also dismissed in October 2018.
Supreme Court’s Observations
1. Lack of Proper Representation
The Supreme Court found merit in the appellant’s contention that it was not properly represented in the original suit. It noted:
“The High Court has noted that on behalf of the appellant, M/s. Narayanan & Narayanan, Advocates have entered appearance and filed a vakalatnama. However, the appellant contends that it never authorized the said advocates to represent it.”
2. Failure to Serve Summons
The Court observed that there was ambiguity regarding the service of summons and ruled:
“Even assuming that vakalatnama was filed on behalf of the appellant, personal service of the writ of summons was required under Rule 79 of the Bombay High Court Rules.”
3. Procedural Fairness and Right to Contest
The Court emphasized that the appellant should have been given an opportunity to contest the claim, especially given the high-value damages sought:
“Considering the nature of the claim and in the interest of justice, an opportunity has to be given to the appellant to contest the suit subject to terms.”
4. Restoring the Suit
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in rejecting the appellant’s request to set aside the ex-parte decree. The Court ruled:
“In the result, the impugned judgment dated 09.07.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay is set aside, and the suit is restored.”
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court ordered:
- Restoration of Suit No.2865 of 1994 before the Bombay High Court.
- The appellant was granted four weeks to file its written statement.
- The High Court was directed to afford sufficient opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence and dispose of the suit in accordance with the law.
- The appellant was required to deposit Rs.35,00,000/- within two months, in addition to the Rs.60,00,000/- already deposited.
Implications of the Judgment
- Reinforces the importance of proper service of summons and fair representation in civil litigation.
- Ensures that high-value claims are contested through due process rather than being decided ex-parte.
- Sets a precedent for allowing defendants to challenge ex-parte decrees in cases where representation was disputed.
- Demonstrates the Supreme Court’s commitment to procedural fairness and access to justice.
Petitioner Name: Aviation Travels Pvt. Ltd..Respondent Name: Bhavesha Suresh Goradia & Others.Judgment By: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice A.S. Bopanna.Place Of Incident: Mumbai, Maharashtra.Judgment Date: 02-03-2020.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: Aviation Travels Pvt vs Bhavesha Suresh Gora Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 02-03-2020.pdf
Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in Judgment by A. S. Bopanna
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments
See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
