Disposed¶47

Shri Kedarnath Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. v. R. K. Builders

Bombay HC19 Nov 2025CONP/16/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court (Arif S. Doctor, J.), 19-11-2025, Contempt Petition No. 16 of 2025 in Notice of Motion No. 1064 of 2017 in Suit No. 354 of 2017; Shri Kedarnath Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. v. R. K. Builders & Ors.; alleged contempt re R.G. area access, stormwater drain maintenance and car parking on recreation ground; disposed of on defendants' signed statement; written undertaking within one week; no numerical cap on cars per order dated 29.03.2019; compliance on 01.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Petition disposed of in terms of the statement tendered on behalf of Defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(d); allegations of contempt withdrawn; Defendants to furnish a written undertaking within one week (without any specific number of cars); matter stood over to 1st December 2025 for compliance. ¶47

Shri Kedarnath Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. vs R. K. Builders — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether Defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(d), legal heirs of the erstwhile Developer, committed contempt of the two orders of this Court dated 13th July 2017 and 29th March 2019. +3 more

¶22

Court's answer

On the basis of the statement signed by the Advocate on instructions and tendered on behalf of Defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(d), the allegations of contempt against them stand withdrawn and the Contempt Petition is disposed of in terms of the statement.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

Nothing further survives in the Contempt Petition, which is disposed of.

¶44

Key takeaways

Defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(d) shall furnish a written undertaking to the Court setting out what has been stated in the said statement, within one week.ratio¶45
The order dated 29th March 2019 does not prescribe the number of cars that can be parked in the R.G. area; therefore the Defendants cannot now fetter or limit the number, and the undertaking shall not contain any specific number of cars.ratio¶46
Disposal is in terms of the defendants' statement, under which Defendant Nos.1(a)-1(d) shall permit members of the Plaintiff No. 1 to 4 societies to park 9 cars in the R.G. area using the currently open and accessible entrance gate, subject to the conditions in the statement (removal within 24 hours of municipal permission to construct proposed building no. 4, identification stickers, no outsider vehicles), purely interim and without prejudice to rights and contentions on merits.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Petition by plaintiff co-operative housing society against Defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(d), legal heirs of the erstwhile Developer, alleging contempt of orders dated 13th July 2017 and 29th March 2019 on three counts: restriction of access to the Recreation Ground (R.G.) area, non-maintenance of stormwater drains in the layout, and obstruction of use of the R.G. area for parking. Counsel for the defendants tendered a signed statement providing: use of the R.G. area by the Plaintiff No. 1 to 4 societies subject to no structures, open-to-sky and non-commercial conditions; no hindrance to such use; keeping the R.G. area clean and repairing stormwater drains; and permission to park 9 cars in the R.G. area subject to identification, removal within 24 hours of municipal permission for proposed building no. 4, and no outsider vehicles, purely interim and without prejudice. HELD: allegations of contempt stand withdrawn; nothing further survives; Contempt Petition disposed of in terms of the statement; Defendants to furnish a written undertaking within one week. Clarified that the order dated 29th March 2019 does not prescribe the number of cars parkable in the R.G. area, so the Defendants cannot fetter or limit the number and the undertaking shall not contain any specific number of cars. Compliance listed on 1st December 2025.

¶1

37-CONP-16-2025 (OS).DOC

¶2

1/4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 16 OF 2025

¶5

¶6

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1064 OF 2017

¶7

¶8

SUITS NO. 354 OF 2017

¶9

Shri Kedarnath Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.

¶10

...Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶11

Versus

¶12

R. K. Builders & Ors.

¶13

..Defendants

¶14

WITH

¶15

INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.10809 OF 2025

¶16

WITH

¶17

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1064 OF 2017

¶18

Mr. Aadil Parsurampuria i/b M/s. Legal Vision, for the Petitioner/Plaintiff. Mr. Sahil Saiyed for Defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(d).

¶19

Mr. Sunil Khandagale i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi, for Defendant Nos.5 to 8-BMC.

¶20

CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. DATE : 19th NOVEMBER 2025

¶21

P.C.

¶22

The present Contempt Petition alleges contempt by Defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(d) (who are the legal heirs of the Erstwhile Developer) of two orders of this Court the first is an order dated 13th July 2017 and the second is an order dated 29th March 2019.

¶23

Essentially, the contempt alleged by the Petitioner can be another three broad points: first, that the Developer had restricted the Petitioner's access to the R.G. area; second, that the stormwater drains forming part of the layout were not

¶24

Vaibhav

¶25

37-CONP-16-2025 (OS).DOC

¶26

2/4

¶27

allowed to be maintained by the Petitioner's society; and third, that the area for recreation ground was not permitted to be used for parking vehicles in the manner contemplated in the order dated 29 th March 2020. There has been a fair history of litigation enacted between the Petitioner and the Defendants Developer.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendants Developer, while denying any contempt on the part of the Defendants, has today submitted a statement on behalf of Defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(d), on the basis of which the Contempt Petition can be disposed of. He further informed the Court that, though this statement has been signed by him as Advocate on instructions of the Defendants. The Defendants shall furnish an undertaking in terms of the said statement to this Court within a period of one week from today.

¶29

Thus, having perused the statement tendered today on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1(a) to 1(d), which reads thus:

¶30

"STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO. 1A TO ID TO DISPOSE OFF CONTEMPT PETITION

¶31

In terms of the Clause 9 x of the Order dated 13th July, 2017 the Plaintiff No. 1 to 4 societies and/or its members shall be entitled to use the R.G. area at the said property as permitted by this Hon'ble Court subject to a) the Plaintiffs not erecting or causing to be erected any structure temporary or permanent of any nature over the Recreation Ground (R.G.) area as opened up in terms of Order dated 13th July, 2017, b) always keeping it open to sky and c) using it only as an R.G. area and not commercially exploiting the same in any manner.

¶32

Vaibhav

¶33

37-CONP-16-2025 (OS).DOC

¶34

3/4

¶35

The Defendant No. la to 1d shall not cause or permit any hindrance or obstruction in the aforesaid use of the R.G. area by the members of the Plaintiff societies as aforesaid.

¶36

The Defendant No. la to Id shall keep the R.G. area clean, periodically trim the grass/vegetation that may grow therein and repair/maintain the storm water drains as and when informed of breakage by the Plaintiffs. The Defendant No. la to Id shall seek support and cooperation from Plaintiffs to keep the RG area clean, in good condition and free from garbage and damage at all times.

¶37

The Defendant No. la to Id shall permit the members of the Plaintiff No. 1 to 4 to park 9 cars in the R.G. area utilizing the currently open and accessible entrance gate as reflected in the sanctioned plans in terms of the undertaking given by the Plaintiffs as recorded in paragraph 4 of the Order dated 29th March 2019. This permission is granted subject to the cars being removed within 24 hours of permission being granted by the municipal authorities to the Defendant No. la to 1d to construct proposed building no. 4 at the said property.

¶38

The aforesaid shall also be subject to the Plaintiffs within 1 week from today sharing with the Defendant No. la to Id the names of members and specific registration numbers of the 9 cars to be parked in the R.G. area which shall also be affixed with a distinct sticker by the Plaintiffs for identification purposes. In the event that the Plaintiff in future desire to change the name of the members or details of cars to be parked in the R.G area as aforesaid it shall do so by informing the Defendant NO. la to 1d in writing atleast 48 hours in advance, provide fresh stickers for the same and in no circumstances permit outsider vehicles to be parked in the R.G. area. . It is clarified that the present arrangement shall be purely interim and without prejudice to all rights and contentions of the parties on merits, which are kept open. The parties shall not claim equities on the basis hereof and no right, title, interest, license of any nature

¶39

Vaibhav

¶40

37-CONP-16-2025 (OS).DOC

¶41

4/4

¶42

whatsoever in the suit property is created in favor of any party by virtue of the statements made herein or order passed hereon.

¶43

In light of the aforesaid the allegations of contempt of court as contained in the present petition against the Defendant No. la to 1d stand withdrawn and the Petition may be disposed off in terms hereof."

¶44

Nothing further survives in this Contempt Petition.

¶45

The Defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(d) shall, however, furnish a written undertaking setting out what has been stated in the said statement to this Court within a period of one week from today.

¶46

It is made clear that the order dated 29 th March 2019 does not prescribe the number of cars that can be parked in the R.G. area. Therefore, there is no question of the Defendants now put in any fetter or limit upon the same and the undertaking shall therefore not contain any specific number of cars.

¶47

The Contempt Petition is disposed of.

¶48

Stand over to 1st December 2025 for compliance.

¶49

[ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.]

¶50

Vaibhav

Shri Kedarnath Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. v. R. K. Builders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Kedarnath Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. v. R. K. Builders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals Private Limited vs Benatton Pharmaceutical Private Limited

Fraunhofer Gesellschaft Zur Forderung Der Angewandten Forschung E v vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

Csb Bank Limited vs Vikram B Trivedi

Cadila Healthcare Ltd. Vs Mrs. Alka Singh, Proprietor of the Firm Alkvish Pharma Exports

Medipack Global Ventures Private Limited vs Assitant Controller of Patents and Designs

Nanji Popatlal Shah vs Ratna Rupal Chs Ltd.