Disposed¶20

M J Shah Enterprise v. Pyramid Developers and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Sept 2025IA/4151/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal/disposal of commercial suits CS 73/2025 (I.A. 2510/2023) and CS 82/2025 (I.A. 4151/2025), M.J. Shah Capital Pvt. Ltd. v. Pyramid Developers & Ors., Bombay HC, 15 Oct 2025, San deep V. Marne J: suits withdrawn for want of pleadings on Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015; liberty to institute fresh suits; ad-interim injunction vacated; court fee refund per rules; interim applications disposed of. No precedent engaged.

What did the court decide?

Leave to withdraw the Suits granted with liberty reserved to institute fresh Suits by incorporating necessary pleadings or taking appropriate steps in terms of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015; ad-interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff vacated; refund of Court fees as per rules; Interim Applications disposed of. ¶20

M J Shah Enterprise vs Pyramid Developers and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether leave should be granted to the Plaintiff to withdraw Commercial Suits Nos. 73 and 82 of 2025 on account of absence of pleadings relating to provisions of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, with consequential orders on vacation of the ad-interim injunction, refund of Court fees, and disposal of the Interim Applications.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Leave sought on behalf of the Plaintiff is granted: reserving the liberty prayed for, the Suits are permitted to be withdrawn and disposed of.

¶20

Key takeaways

The ad-interim injunction granted in favour of the Plaintiff stands vacated.ratio¶21
Refund of Court fees is directed as per rules.ratio¶21
In view of the disposal of the Suits, nothing survives in the Interim Applications, which are also disposed of accordingly.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, O.O.C.J. (San deep V. Marne, J.), 15 October 2025 - Commercial Suit No.73 of 2025 with Interim Application No.2510 of 2023, and Commercial Suit No.82 of 2025 with Interim Application No.4151 of 2025 - M.J. Shah Capital Private Limited v. Pyramid Developers & Ors.: Learned counsel for the Plaintiff, on instructions, sought leave to withdraw the Suits on account of absence of pleadings relating to provisions of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, with liberty to institute fresh Suits by incorporating necessary pleadings or for taking appropriate steps in terms of Section 12A of the Act. Reserving the liberty as prayed for, the Suits were permitted to be withdrawn and disposed of. The ad-interim injunction granted in favour of the Plaintiff stands vacated; refund of Court fees directed as per rules. In view of the disposal of the Suits, nothing survived in the Interim Applications, which were also disposed of accordingly.

¶1

k 1/2 25 ia 2510.23 in coms os.doc

¶2

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

¶3

COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.73 OF 2025

¶4

M.J. Shah Capital Private Limited ....Plaintiff V/S

¶5

Pyramid Developers & Ors.

¶6

....Defendants

¶7

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2510 OF 2023 IN COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.73 OF 2025

¶8

M.J. Shah Capital Private Limited ....Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN M.J. Shah Capital Private Limited ....Plaintiff V/S Pyramid Developers & Ors. ....Defendants

¶9

WITH COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.82 OF 2025

¶10

M.J. Shah Capital Private Limited ....Plaintiff V/S Pyramid Developers & Ors. ....Defendants

¶11

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4151 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.82 OF 2025

¶12

M.J. Shah Capital Private Limited ....Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN M.J. Shah Capital Private Limited ....Plaintiff V/S Pyramid Developers & Ors. ....Defendants

¶13

Mr. Mohit Khanna with Mr. Prajot H. Jaggi and Ms. Daksha A. Parmar for the Applicant/Plaintiff.

¶14

Page No. 1 of 2

¶15

katkam

¶16

k 2/2 25 ia 2510.23 in coms os.doc

¶17

Mr. Nishant Sasidharan with Mr. Nishant Chothani, Mr. Yash Chheda, Mr. Rohit Bamne and Ms. Aditi Sinha i/b M/s. Maniar Srivastava Associates for Defendant Nos.1 to 3.

¶18

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 15 OCTOBER 2025.

¶19

P.C.:

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff, on instructions, seeks leave of the Court to withdraw the Suits on account of absence of pleadings relating to provisions of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 ( the Act ). He would seek liberty to institute fresh Suits by incorporating necessary pleadings or for taking appropriate steps in terms of Section 12A of the Act. Reserving the liberty as prayed for the Suits are permitted to be withdrawn and disposed of.

¶21

Ad-interim injunction granted in favour of the Plaintiff stands vacated. Refund of Court fees as per rules.

¶22

In view of the disposal of the Suits, nothing would survive in the Interim Applications and the same are also disposed of accordingly.

¶23

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM RAJALINGAM KATKAM KATKAM Date: 2025.10.16 15:07:32 +0530

¶25

Page No. 2 of 2

¶26

katkam

M J Shah Enterprise v. Pyramid Developers and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M J Shah Enterprise v. Pyramid Developers and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sodexo India Services Private Limited vs Champsearch Private Limited

Indus Realty Through its Partner Faizan Gubitra vs Dhavalgiri Co. operative Housing Society Ltd.

Aryamaan Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs Atul Projects India Pvt. Ltd.

B N Infra through its partner namely Mohammed Nayeem Siddiquee vs Vraj Realtors

Lotus Logistic and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs Evertop Apartments Co. operative Housing Society Limited

Generic Engineering Construction And Projects Ltd. vs Maharashtra Maritime Board