Dismissed¶¶21

Mrs. Manish K. Shah v. District Deputy REGISTRAR-4 , Co-Op Societies, Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Nov 2025RPW/170/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Review Petition No. 170 of 2025 in Writ Petition No. 15141 of 2025, decided 21 November 2025 by M. M. Sathaye, J.; limits of review jurisdiction over a disposed-of writ petition; modification of condition for ad-interim/interim protection (Rs. 1,00,000/- payable to co-operative society versus deposit in Court); dispute over arrears calculation raised by District Deputy Registrar-4; payment without prejudice to rights and contentions; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

In a disposed of matter, where a condition is imposed after hearing the Petitioner for continuation of interim protection, the order cannot be modified under the review jurisdiction. ¶¶19

Mrs. Manish K. Shah vs District Deputy REGISTRAR-4 , Co-Op Societies, Mumbai and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the order imposing payment of Rs.1,00,000/- to the society as a condition for continuation of ad-interim protection can be reviewed/modified under the review jurisdiction so that the amount is deposited in the Court instead of paid to the society. +1 more

¶¶18

Court's answer

In a disposed of matter, where a condition is imposed after hearing the Petitioner for continuation of interim protection, the order cannot be modified under the review jurisdiction.

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

No change in circumstance was pointed out; otherwise also, no ground for review of the said order was made out.

¶¶19

Key takeaways

The ground that the calculations are not correct was argued originally also and is not sufficient to review the order.ratio¶¶19
It is already noted in the order under review that payment to the society shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.ratio¶¶20
Accordingly, the Petitioner suffers no prejudice as sought to be contended.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Petition No. 170 of 2025 in Writ Petition No. 15141 of 2025 (Mrs. Manisha K. Shah v. District Deputy Registrar-4, Co-op Societies, Mumbai) — Petitioner sought review of the orders dated 29/09/2025 (final disposal) and 13/10/2025 (correction adding para 12.1 and conditioning continuation of ad-interim protection on payment of Rs.1,00,000/- to the society). Held (M. M. Sathaye, J.: (i) in a disposed of matter, where such a condition is imposed after hearing the Petitioner, the order cannot be modified under the review jurisdiction; (ii) no change in circumstance was shown and no other ground for review was made out; (iii) the objection that the arrears calculations are incorrect was argued originally also and is insufficient to review the order; and (iv) payment to the society is expressly without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, so no prejudice is caused to the Petitioner. Review Petition dismissed.

¶1

904.RPW.170.2025.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by ANANT ANANT KRISHNA KRISHNA NAIK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAIK Date: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 2025.11.21 19:40:29 +0530 REVIEW PETITION NO. 170 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 15141 OF 2025

¶3

Mrs. Manisha K. Shah ...Petitioner Versus District Deputy Registrar-4, Co-op Societies, Mumbai & Ors ...Respondents ****

¶4

Mr. Jitendrakumar G. Damani for the Petitioner

¶5

Ms. Savita Prabhune, AGP for the Respondent-State

¶6

Adv. Yogesh Deshpande a/w. Adv. Pranav Rane for the Respondent No. 3-Society.

¶7

¶8

CORAM : M. M. SATHAYE, J.

¶9

DATED : 21^st NOVEMBER 2025

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

Petitioner is seeking review of orders dated 29/09/2025 and 13/10/2025.

¶12

This Writ Petition was heard and finally disposed of on 29/09/2025. Since certain errors had crept in the said order, a praecipe was moved by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, seeking corrections. It was pointed out to the Court that continuation of ad-interim protection remained to be incorporated in the order.

¶13

Accepting the request on 13/10/2025, an order was passed thereby correcting the typographical mistake as well as adding para 12.1 recording the request of the Petitioner for continuation of the ad-interim protection. At that time, considering the facts and circumstances, a condition was imposed

1/2

akn

904.RPW.170.2025.doc

for continuation of the ad-interim protection in the form of payment of Rs.1,00,000/- to the society.

¶18

Learned Counsel Mr. Damani appearing for the Petitioner today argued that the order may be reviewed and the amount may be directed to be deposited in the Court, instead of payment to the society. He re-agitated the issue about whether the Petitioner is in arrears and whether the calculation about arrears demanded from her are proper or not.

¶19

In a disposed of matter, where condition is imposed after hearing the Petitioner, for continuation of interim protection, the order cannot be modified under the review jurisdiction. No change in circumstance is pointed out. Otherwise also no ground for review of the said order is made out. A ground that calculations are not correct was argued originally also and it is not sufficient to review the order.

¶20

It is already noted in the order under review that payment to the society shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Therefore I do not see any prejudice to the Petitioner as sought to be contended.

¶21

The Review Petition is therefore dismissed.

¶22

2/2

¶23

akn

Mrs. Manish K. Shah v. District Deputy REGISTRAR-4 , Co-Op Societies, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Manish K. Shah v. District Deputy REGISTRAR-4 , Co-Op Societies, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Future Generali India Ins. Co. Ltd.,Mumbai vs Smt. Amira Amar Mishra and Ors.

Yogesh Jagjivandas Suchak and Ors. vs Nandlal Shamjee Sanghvi and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra vs Alhad Balaram Mhatre And Anr.

Shri Vyankatesh Narayan Dabadse and Anr. vs M/S Associated Traders and Enineers Ltd.

Abdul Mohamed Hanifa Ahmed vs Noor Mohd. Sayed Chand Shaikh and Anr.

Auto Credit Corporation vs Mahesh Mithalal Trivedi