-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 383 OF 2010 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1754 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1038 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO. 979 OF 2010 Marico Limited ... Appellants versus The Bombay Xaverian Corporation Ltd. ...Respondents Mr. Virag V. Tulzapurkar, with Smt. Soumya Shrikrishna and Shri D. Vas, instructed by M/s. Little & Company, for the appellant. Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Vishal Kanade, instructed by V.A. Almeida for the defendant. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 06, 2010. P.C. By way of this appeal, the appellant, original plaintiff, has challenged the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 6th May, 2010, in Notice of Motion No. 1038 of 2010 in Suit No. 979 of 2010. The appellant is the original plaintiff. The appellant has filed the above suit for specific performance of the suit agreement. By way of Notice of Motion it was prayed that during the pendency of the suit, ad-interim injunction may be granted restraining the defendant from transferring, alienating or dealing with the suit -2- property in any manner. The learned single Judge, while declining the prayer for granting ad-interim injunction, has adjourned the Notice of Motion for bipartite hearing. Mr. Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, has vehemently submitted that the reasoning given by the learned single Judge is not tenable as the learned single Judge has held that no injunction can be granted against the owners of the property and the owners of the property cannot be restrained from transferring the property to somebody else. Relying on the aforesaid observations in the order it is argued that if the said principle is to be accepted, in a suit for specific performance, no injunction can be granted as injunction is always sought for against the real owner. 2. Mr. Prasad K. Dhakephalkar, learned senior counsel appearing for the defendant, states that the defendant being a Trust cannot sell the property without obtaining prior permission from the Charity Commissioner. He submitted that there is no justification in the apprehension on the part of the appellant that the defendant is going to sell away the property immediately as appropriate procedure is required to be followed . He further submitted that before applying to the Charity Commissioner for granting such permission for sale or transfer of the property, 15 days notice would be given to the plaintiff in advance. In view of the said statement, in our view, it is not necessary to pass any order setting aside the order of the learned single Judge as the defendant is not going to transfer the property, as they are required to follow the procedure -3- as per the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. However, the learned single Judge may dispose of the Motion as early as possible, preferably by 15th October, 2010. The Court is informed that the Notice of Motion is already on the Board for final disposal. It is needless to say that the observations of the learned single Judge should not be construed as if the learned single Judge has decided that no injunction can be granted against the owner of the suit property. It is clarified that in case the Notice of Motion is not disposed of finally and in the meanwhile if the plaintiff receives any notice as argued by the learned counsel for the defendant, it will be open to the plaintiff again to apply for ad-interim relief in the pending suit. 3. Subject to what is stated above, the Appeal and the Notice of Motion are disposed of accordingly. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.