Authority: High Court of Bombay at Goa

Order Date: 4 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Appellant: Diana Buildwell Private Limited (Defendant No.1) represented by Mr. Ajit Luthra.
  • Respondents: 1) Sterling Holidays Resorts (India) Limited (Plaintiff), 2) Yes Bank Limited, 3) The Saraswat Co‑op. Bank Limited, 4) Vijaya Bank Limited, 5) Starwood Hotels & Resorts India Private Ltd.
  • Appeal filed under Order 43 CPC against Order No.31 of 2024 dated 09.08.2024, which partially granted a temporary injunction in Special Civil Suit No. 11/2015/A.
  • The impugned order restrained Defendant No.1 from dealing with, mortgaging, or creating third‑party rights over the suit property and restrained Defendant No.2 (Yes Bank) from parting with title documents without court permission.
  • Plaintiff’s claim rested on a Deed of Sale dated 11.05.2007 transferring four parcels of land (plus agricultural parcels) for a total consideration of Rs 49,11,00,000/‑ and an additional clause (Clause 9) promising Rs 6,00,00,000/‑ upon renewal of a construction licence.
  • Plaintiff argued that Clause 9 created a seller’s lien under Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, invoking the triple test for interim injunctions (prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury).
  • Respondent No.1 (plaintiff) contended that the deed was absolute, with no reservation, and that the additional amount was part of consideration, not a lien.
  • Respondent No.2 (Yes Bank) and other banks were defendants to the injunction because the property had been mortgaged to them on 23.12.2013 (mortgage deed) securing a loan exceeding Rs 1,00,00,00,000/‑.
  • Extensive submissions referenced Supreme Court precedents: Mandali Ranganna, UTO Nederland B.V., Bloomberg Television Production Services India Pvt Ltd. v. Zee Entertainment, Wander Ltd. v. Antox India, Martin Burn Ltd. v. R.N. Banerjee, Dalpat Kumar v. Pralhad Singh, among others.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court held that the trial court had erred by: (i) ignoring the eight‑year delay (2007‑2015) and laches; (ii) failing to examine the plaintiff’s conduct; (iii) relying on a judgment concerning Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which is not applicable to an Order 39 CPC injunction; (iv) not applying the settled triple‑test principles.
  • Consequently, the temporary injunction order dated 09.08.2024 was quashed and set aside.
  • All pending civil applications (Misc. Civil Application Nos. 92/2025, 457/2024, 96/2024) were disposed of.
  • No order as to costs was made.
  • A request by the plaintiff for a stay of the impugned order was rejected.

Topics: Court Injunctions, Property Law, Transfer of Property Act