Disposed¶22

Manohardevi Berisalsingh Rajput Alias Manoribai v. Vardhan Associates

Bombay HC1 Apr 2025CONPW/76/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Consent disposal of contempt petition (CONPW 76/2024) in Writ Petition 2160/2016, Bombay High Court OOCJ, Kulkarni & Sathe JJ., 22.12.2025; parties Rajendra Singh Berisal Singh v. Vardhan Associates; settlement and consent terms accepted; para 3 directions of order dated 03.09.2024 vacated by consent; SRA noted not a party to consent terms; liberty to revive on cheque dishonour; leave to amend; no costs; no statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of by consent upon settlement: directions in paragraph 3 of the order dated 03 September 2024 vacated; liberty reserved to petitioners to revive the petition if the cheques are dishonoured; leave to amend granted with re-verification dispensed with; no costs. ¶22

Manohardevi Berisalsingh Rajput Alias Manoribai vs Vardhan Associates — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

7-CONPW 76-24.DOC

¶2

PRAJAKTASAGARVARTAK Digitallysigned byPRAJAKTASAGARVARTAKDate:2025.12.2411:54:19+0530

¶3

Prajakta Vartak

¶4

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

¶5

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 76 OF 2024 IN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 2160 OF 2016

¶7

Rajendra Singh Berisal Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners Vs

¶8

Vardhan Associates & Ors. ...Respondents

¶9

Ms. Jennifer Sagayarajan for Petitioners.

¶10

Mr. Bhavik Manek i/b. Mr. Sharad Wakchoure with Mr. Hiten Raut for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶11

Mr. Jagdish Aradwad (Reddy) for Respondent No.3/SRA.

¶12

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. DATE: 22 DECEMBER 2025.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

Leave to amend in terms of the draft amendment. The amendment be

¶15

carried out during the course of the day. Re-verification is dispensed with.

¶16

The parties have already settled the dispute. Consent terms are entered between the parties. The consent terms could be placed on record on the original proceedings. We, however, accept the contention as made by the parties that the consent terms as entered between the parties, is the position taken/adopted by the parties.

¶17

In view of the settlement of the dispute, the contempt proceedings are not required to be taken forward. As the parties have agreed to abide by the terms and conditions set out in the settlement/consent terms, the parties jointly request that this Court vacate the directions contained in paragraph 3 of the order dated

¶18

Page 1 of 2 22 December 2025

¶19

7-CONPW 76-24.DOC

¶20

03 September 2024. Accordingly, by consent of the parties, the said directions stand vacated. Needless to observe that the SRA is not a party to the consent terms.

¶21

As the payment is yet to be received, we also accept the request made on behalf of the petitioners that, in the event the cheques are dishonoured, liberty be granted to the petitioners to revive this petition.

¶22

The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶23

Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶24

(AARTI SATHE, J.)

¶25

(G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

¶26

Page 2 of 2 22 December 2025

Manohardevi Berisalsingh Rajput Alias Manoribai v. Vardhan Associates

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohardevi Berisalsingh Rajput Alias Manoribai v. Vardhan Associates

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

Balu Vithoba Tope vs State of Maharashtra through Its D of R and Ors.

Tukaram Ganpat Mohare Since Deceased Throu. L.H Shivaji T. Mohare vs the Collector Pune (Rehabilitation ) and Ors. )

Deepak Tiles and Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Govt Pleader and Ors.

Hasmukh N Malkan vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation through the Assistant Commissioner Engineer

Tista Creations through Jitendra T. Adnani vs Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance

Idfc First Bank Limited vs the State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader