Authority: High Court of Bombay at Goa

Order Date: 4 September 2026 (judgment pronounced); impugned injunction order dated 9 August 2024

Case Overview

  • Appeal filed under Order 43 CPC against Order No. 31 / 2024 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa, in Special Civil Suit No. 11/2015/A.
  • Appellant: Diana Buildwell Private Limited (Defendant No. 1 in the suit).
  • Respondent No. 1: Sterling Holidays Resorts (India) Limited (Plaintiff in the suit).
  • Respondents No. 2‑5: Yes Bank Ltd, The Saraswat Co‑op. Bank Ltd, Vijaya Bank Ltd, Starwood Hotels & Resorts India Private Ltd (Defendant Nos. 2‑5).
  • The impugned order partially granted the temporary injunction (prayers a, b, d) and rejected prayers c, e, f. It restrained Defendant No. 1 from dealing with, altering, or parting with the suit property, and barred creation of further encumbrances; it also restrained Defendant No. 2 (Yes Bank) from parting with title documents without court permission.

Submissions – Appellant (Diana Buildwell)

1. The Deed of Sale dated 11 May 2007 transferred four parcels of land, an agricultural parcel, and another parcel absolutely, with full consideration of Rs 49,11,00,000/‑; no reservation of lien or charge was intended.

2. Citing Sections 54 and 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, argued that a seller’s lien can arise only if a specific clause creates a charge, which is absent.

3. Asserted that the plaintiff’s suit was filed after an unjustified delay (seven‑plus years) and that the trial court ignored the principles governing interlocutory injunctions, rendering its order perverse.

Submissions – Respondent No. 1 (Sterling Holidays)

1. Relied on Clause 1 together with Clauses 8 and 9 of the Deed, contending they create a specific seller’s lien for an additional Rs 6,00,00,000/‑ payable upon renewal of a construction licence (renewed on 17 July 2007).

2. Maintained that the trial court correctly applied the observations of the Supreme Court in Mandali Ranganna and UTO Nederland and that the injunction was justified.

Submissions – Respondent No. 3 (The Saraswat Co‑op. Bank)

1. Highlighted that a mortgage deed dated 23 December 2013 was executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of a consortium of banks (Defendants 2‑4), depositing the title deed with Yes Bank.

2. Argued that the Deed of Sale contains no reservation of rights; the seller expressly disclaimed any lien, granting the purchaser free title to sell, mortgage, or lease.

3. Contended that the Rs 6,00,00,000/‑ mentioned in Clause 9 is not part of the consideration and cannot create a lien under Section 55.

Court’s Considerations

  • The appellate court emphasized that interference with a temporary injunction is permissible only when the lower court’s discretion is arbitrary, capricious, or perverse, i.e., when settled principles are ignored.
  • The court reiterated the three‑fold test for interlocutory injunctions: (i) prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience, (iii) irreparable injury, and added that the plaintiff’s conduct (clean hands) must be examined.
  • Examined the timeline:
  • Deed of Sale executed 11 May 2007.
  • Licence renewal obtained 17 July 2007, triggering Clause 9 for an additional Rs 6,00,00,000/‑.
  • No correspondence from plaintiff to defendant regarding the lien until a Legal Notice dated 3 Oct 2012 (five years later).
  • Defendant’s reply on 20 Oct 2012 denied any lien; plaintiff’s rejoinder on 10 May 2013 was largely a denial.
  • Suit filed on 22 Feb 2015, after an eight‑year gap from the licence renewal.
  • Mortgage deed executed 23 Dec 2013, creating a charge in favour of the bank consortium.
  • The court found the plaintiff’s delay amounted to laches, disqualifying it from equitable relief.
  • The court held that the trial court had not examined the plaintiff’s conduct or the delay, nor applied the triple test, and had improperly relied on a Supreme Court judgment that pertained only to an Order 7 Rule 11 application (plaint rejection), not to a temporary injunction under Order 39 CPC.
  • The court concluded that the Deed of Sale contains no contract to the contrary; clauses 8 and 9 do not create a seller’s lien, and the property was transferred free of encumbrances, allowing the purchaser to mortgage it.

Final Outcome

  • The impugned temporary injunction order dated 9 August 2024 is quashed and set aside.
  • All reliefs restraining Defendant No. 1 and the banks are dismissed.
  • Miscellaneous Civil Application Nos. 92/2025, 457/2024 and Civil Application No. 96/2024 are disposed of.
  • No order as to costs was made.
  • A request for a stay of the order was rejected.

Topics: Injunction, Seller’s Lien, Property Law