Disposed¶22

Shirodkar Infrastruture v. Vishakha Regency Co. op Hsg Soc Ltd.

Bombay HC18 Nov 2025IA/6434/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay - service of writ of summons - 321 days delay from numbering of Commercial Suit No. 107 of 2024 - 35 days beyond last listing - pendency of mediation (July 17, August 7, August 12, 2025; failure report September 3, 2025) - non-removal of office objections urged as ground for dismissal - Bombay High Court, Somasekhar Sundaresan, J. - delay condoned with costs Rs. 25,000/- each to Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 - Shirodkar Infrastructure v. Vishakha Regency Co op Hsg Soc Ltd - Interim Application disposed of November 19, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 321 days in service of the writ of summons condoned; Interim Application disposed of subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000/- to each of Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2. ¶22

Shirodkar Infrastruture vs Vishakha Regency Co. op Hsg Soc Ltd. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 321 days in service of the writ of summons condoned; Interim Application disposed of subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000/- to each of Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 321 days from the date of numbering of the Suit and 35 days after the last listing, in serving the writ of summons, should be condoned. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

Because another Bench of the Court had, after hearing the parties, referred the parties to mediation and the parties had indeed engaged in mediation, the Court considered it in the interest of justice to allow the Application for condonation of delay.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The delay in service of the writ of summons (321 days from numbering of the Suit) is condoned, with the Application allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000/- to each of Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2.

¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, OOCJ (Somasekhar Sundaresan, J., November 19, 2025) - Interim Application No. 6434 of 2025 in Commercial Suit No. 107 of 2024, Shirodkar Infrastructure v. Vishakha Regency Co op Hsg Soc Ltd. The Applicant sought condonation of a delay of 321 days from the numbering of the Suit (November 5, 2024) and 35 days after the last listing, for service of the writ of summons. The Court noted that after a hearing on an Interim Application, another Bench had referred the parties to mediation; mediation was held on July 17, August 7 and August 12, 2025, and a failure report was filed on September 3, 2025. The Defendants contended that pendency of mediation did not excuse the delay and that the Suit should ideally have been dismissed for non-removal of office objections. Observing that service of summons ought to have proceeded even while mediation was pending, but that, given the referral to and engagement in mediation, allowing the Application served the interest of justice, the Judge condoned the delay subject to costs of Rs. 25,000/- to each of Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2, and disposed of the Interim Application accordingly. All actions pursuant to the order were directed to be taken on receipt of a downloaded copy from the Court's website.

¶1

909-IA-6434-2025.doc

¶2

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

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6434 OF 2025 IN

¶4

COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 107 OF 2024

¶5

Shirodkar Infrastructure …Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Vishakha Regency Co op Hsg Soc Ltd

¶8

…Respondent

¶9

Mr. Sanjiv Sawant a/w. Abhishek Matkar , for the Applicant.

¶10

Mr. Vishal Mehta a/w. Ms Manashvi Shah i/b. M/s. MV Law Partners, for Defendant No.1.

¶11

Mr. Hemant Mehta a/w. Mrs. Jinal Mehta & Ms Anamika Tiwari i/b. Mehta & Co., for Defendant No.2.

¶12

CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 19, 2025

¶13

ORDER :

¶14

This Application seeks condonation of delay of 321 days from the date of numbering of the Suit and 35 days after the last listing before this Court, for service of the writ of summons.

¶15

Having heard the parties, while much has been said about each party’s contentions, including on applicable law, it is seen that the parties indeed engaged in a hearing of an Interim Application, after which eventually, the matter sought to be resolved by mediation on

¶16

Page 1 of 3 November 19, 2025

¶17

Ashwini Vallakati

¶18

909-IA-6434-2025.doc

¶19

June 18, 2025. The mediation was held on three dates, i.e. July 17, 2025, August 7, 2025 and August 12, 2025 and eventually, a failure report was filed on September 3, 2025.

¶20

Since the Suit was numbered on November 5, 2024, the Applicant ought to have ensured that the writ of summons was served even while mediation was pending. The submission on behalf of the Defendants is that the pendency of mediation ought not to have led to a delay in serving the writ of summons. It is also pointed out that in any case, the time limit of removal of office objections has not also not been met, and ideally this Suit should have been dismissed for non-removal of office objections.

¶21

Considering that another Bench of this Court, after hearing the parties thought it fit to refer the parties to mediation and the parties had indeed engaged mediation, in my opinion, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to allow the Application, subject to payment of costs in the sum of Rs.25,000/- to each of Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2.

¶22