A division bench of Justice Sunil Shukre and Anil Pansare said that though the hall owner (petitioner) should not ideally be protected, interim relief should be granted to protect the interest of third parties who had booked the hall for wedding functions.
“This Court is required to examine the consequences of denial of any interim relief to the petitioner and if such denial impacts the private parties, the Court would also be required to consider whether the adverse impact created upon the private parties could be adequately compensated or not,” the bench said.
The Court was of the view that if it does not grant interim relief, the private parties who booked the hall would suffer.
“They (private parties) are likely to suffer irreparably, for no fault on their part, especially when, payment of compensation would bring no adequate relief to them. After all, not allowing the petitioner to go ahead with the proposed marriage function would ultimately lead to cancellation of marriage between young bride and groom causing great trauma, pain, inconvenience and financial loss and some times even resulting in breaking of hearts,” the bench opined.