Authority: High Court of Bombay at Goa

Order Date: 4 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – Diana Buildwell Private Limited (original Defendant No. 1); Respondent No. 1 – Sterling Holidays Resorts (India) Limited (Plaintiff). Respondents No. 2‑5 – Yes Bank Limited, The Saraswat Co‑op. Bank Limited, Vijaya Bank Limited, Starwood Hotels & Resorts India Private Ltd. (Defendants No. 2‑5).
  • Nature of proceeding: Appeal under Order 43 of the CPC against Order No. 31 dated 9 August 2024 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa, which granted a temporary injunction in Special Civil Suit No. 11/2015/A.
  • Background: A Deed of Sale dated 11 May 2007 transferred four parcels of land (plus agricultural and another parcel) from Sterling Holidays to Diana Buildwell for a total consideration of Rs 49,11,00,000. Clause 9 of the deed stipulated an additional Rs 6,00,00,000 payable if the seller obtained renewal of a construction licence (renewed on 17 July 2007). The plaintiff alleged a seller’s lien over the property based on this clause.
  • The suit was filed on 22 February 2015, nearly eight years after the licence renewal, after a legal notice dated 3 October 2012 (claiming Rs 6,00,00,000 with 18 % interest) and subsequent replies. The property was mortgaged to a consortium of banks (Yes Bank, Saraswat Co‑op. Bank, Vijaya Bank) on 23 December 2013 for a loan exceeding Rs 1,00,00,00,000.
  • Plaintiff’s contentions: Existence of a seller’s lien, entitlement to a first charge, and that the defendant should be restrained from further mortgaging or transferring the suit property.
  • Defendant’s submissions: The deed was absolute, no contract to the contrary existed under Sections 54‑55 of the Transfer of Property Act; the plaintiff’s delay (five‑year silence after licence renewal and further delay before filing suit) amounted to laches; the mortgage created in 2013 gave the banks a valid charge under Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act.
  • Respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) argued that the trial court correctly relied on the deed clauses and on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mandali Ranganna and UTO Nederland to find a prima‑facie case.
  • The appellate court examined the established principles for granting interlocutory injunctions (prima‑facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury) and the requirement to consider the plaintiff’s conduct and delay.
  • Findings: The trial court failed to consider the eight‑year delay and laches, relied improperly on a judgment concerning an Order 7 Rule 11 application, and did not assess whether Clause 9 created a contract to the contrary under Section 55. The deed’s clauses (1‑5, especially 5(f)‑5(h)) expressly indicated no reservation of rights, and the additional amount in Clause 9 was not part of the sale consideration.
  • Consequently, the plaintiff had no prima‑facie case for a seller’s lien, and the injunction was unjustified.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned temporary injunction order dated 9 August 2024.
  • All related civil applications (Misc. Civil Application Nos. 96/2024, 92/2025, 475/2024) were disposed of.
  • The plaintiff’s request for a stay of the order was rejected.
  • No order as to costs was made.

Topics: Interim Injunction, Property Law