Franco India Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. vs Money Magnum Nest Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Franco India Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. vs Money Magnum Nest Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Consent Terms tendered with leave (leave granted) and taken on record, marked 'X'; Petition stands disposed in accordance with the Consent Terms; undertakings in the Consent Terms accepted as undertakings to the Court; pursuant to the settlement the Petitioner agreed to vacate and hand over possession of the Suit property to Respondent No.1; by way of abundant caution, clarified that the Consent Terms bind the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 and their successors-in-interest only.

Issue for consideration

Challenge to the order passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes in Revision Application No. 218 of 2023 rejecting the Plaint in RAD Suit No. 1250 of 2018 (issue not adjudicated, as the parties settled by Consent Terms)

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Coram: N. J. Jamadar, J. — Writ Petition No. 1783 of 2025, decided 25 July 2025 — Franco India Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd v. Money Magnum Nest Pvt Ltd & Anr. The Petition assailed the order of the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes in Revision Application No. 218 of 2023, whereby the Plaint in RAD Suit No. 1250 of 2018 (a Suit for declaration filed by the Petitioner; Respondent No.1's application for rejection of the Plaint, initially rejected by the learned Trial Judge) came to be rejected. Before adjudication, counsel informed the Court that the parties had amicably resolved the dispute and executed Consent Terms, tendered with leave (leave granted). Mr. Pascal Postel (Chairman and Managing Director, Petitioner), Mr. Alexandre Johan Postel (Joint Managing Director, Petitioner) and Mr. Uday Mota (director and authorised officer, Respondent No.1) were present in Court with copies of the authorising Resolutions annexed to the Consent Terms; they admitted the contents and execution thereof and confirmed voluntary entry into the Consent Terms, the Court recording that there was 'no coercion or duress' and that the parties had worked out a comprehensive settlement, including the Petitioner agreeing to vacate and hand over possession of the Suit property to Respondent No.1. Consent Terms taken on record and marked 'X'; undertakings therein accepted as undertakings to the Court; Petition stood disposed in accordance with the Consent Terms; clarified, by way of abundant caution, that the Consent Terms bind the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 and their successors-in-interest only. No legal proposition adjudicated; no statute or precedent cited.

3-WP-1783-2025.DOC

Arun Sankpal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 1783 OF 2025

Franco India Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd ..Petitioner Versus

Money Magnum Nest Pvt Ltd & Anr …Respondents

Mr. Rohaan Cama, with Mr. Amit Patil and Mr. Rishabh Jadhav, i/b Parinam Law Associates, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Kushan K. Kode, with Ms. R Mehta and Mr. Alpesh Sharma, i/b Vashi And Vashi, for Respondent No.1.

Mr. Pascal Postel, Petitioner present.

Mr. Alexandre Johan Postel, Petitioner present.

Mr Uday Mota, Director of Respondent No.1, present.

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED : 25^th JULY 2025

P.C.:

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties..

The learned Counsel for the parties submit that the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 have amicably resolved the dispute and Consent Terms

have been executed. The learned Counsel seek leave to tender the Consent Terms.

ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL

Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2025.07.28 11:22:27 +0530

Leave granted.

The Petitioner had filed a Suit for declaration. An application for

rejection of the Plaint was filed by the Respondent No.1. The said

application was rejected by the learned Trial Judge. In Revision 1/3

3-WP-1783-2025.DOC

Application No. 218 of 2023, the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes was persuaded to allow the Revision Application and the Plaint in RAD Suit No. 1250 of 2018, came to be rejected.

The said order passed by the Appellate Bench is assailed in this Writ Petition.

It is submitted that, now the parties have amicably resolved the dispute and the Petitioner has agreed to vacate and handover the possession of the Suit property to Respondent No.1.

Mr. Pascal Postel, the Chairman and Managing Director of the Petitioner-Company, and Mr. Alexandre Johan Postel, the Joint Managing Director of the Petitioner-Company, are present in Court. Mr. Uday Mota, the director and authorised officer of the Respondent No.1-company is also present before the Court. The copies of the Resolutions authorising the abovenamed persons to execute, and enter into the Consent Terms are annexed to the Consent Terms. They admit the contents of the Consent Terms and execution thereof. The parties are identified by their respective Advocates. Upon being specifically inquired, Mr. Pascal Postel and Mr. Alexandre Johan Postel submit that they have voluntarily entered into the Consent Terms and will abide by the Consent Terms.

It appears that the Consent Terms have been voluntarily executed

and there is no coercion or duress. The parties seem to have worked out a comprehensive settlement of the dispute.

2/3

3-WP-1783-2025.DOC

The Consent terms are thus taken on record and marked “X”.

The Petition stands disposed in accordance with the Consent Terms, “X”.

The undertakings in the Consent Terms are accepted as undertakings to the Court.

By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that these Consent

Terms will bind the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 and their successorin-interest, only.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

3/3