Rustomjee Realty Private Limited vs Union of India — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rustomjee Realty Private Limited vs Union of India — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 30.06.2024 set aside; Petitioner's Appeal restored to the file of Respondent No.2 for fresh consideration on merits and as per law; all contentions of the parties kept open; Respondent No.2 directed/requested to grant an opportunity of hearing to all parties, pass a reasoned order, and dispose of the Appeal as expeditiously as possible and in any event on or before 30th June, 2025; order to be communicated to the parties; Rule made absolute; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent No.2 was justified in refusing to entertain/dismissing the Petitioner's Appeal on the ground that it was instituted and signed by an 'authorized signatory' without proof, such as a board resolution, of that signatory's authority. +1 more

Court's answer

Proper material had been produced to show that the signatory on the Appeal memo was indeed authorized to sign the same; the facts were not significantly different from earlier petitions allowed in identical circumstances.

Ratio / Principle

If Respondent No.2 had any objections on entertaining any evidence or submissions, he should have put the Petitioner to notice; denial of such an opportunity violates the principles of natural justice and fair play.

Key takeaways

The Court set aside the impugned Order dated 30th June 2024 and restored the Petitioner's Appeal to the file of Respondent No.2 for fresh consideration on its merits and as per law; Rule was made absolute accordingly, with no order as to costs.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (O.O.C.J.), Division Bench of B. P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ. — Writ Petition No.4982 of 2024 (Rustomjee Realty Private Limited v. Union of India), decided 01-04-2025: ALLOWED. The Petitioner's Appeal before Respondent No.2 had been dismissed by Order-in-Appeal No.SK/84/AppealsII/ME/2024-25 dated 30.06.2024 solely because it was instituted/signed by an 'authorized signatory' without production of proof such as a board resolution. Following earlier orders of the Court in W.P.(L) 26123 of 2024, W.P. 11298 of 2024 and W.P.(L) 32758 of 2024 in near-identical circumstances, the Court held that proper material showed the signatory was indeed authorized, and that any objections to evidence or submissions should have been put to the Petitioner — denial of such opportunity violating natural justice and fair play. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal restored to Respondent No.2's file for fresh consideration on merits; hearing to be granted to all parties, a reasoned order passed, and disposal sought on or before 30.06.2025; all contentions kept open; Rule made absolute; no costs.

46 wp4982-24.doc

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

WRIT PETITION NO.4982 OF 2024

Rustomjee Realty Private Limited .. Petitioner

Digitally signed by TRUSHA TRUSHA TUSHAR TUSHAR MOHITE MOHITE Date: 2025.04.04 09:52:31 +0530

Versus

Union of India .. Respondent

Mr.Gopal Mundhra i/b M/s.Economic Laws Practice, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr.M.P.Sharma a/w Ms.Mamta Omle, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: APRIL 1, 2025

P. C.

Mentioned out of turn.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith at the request of and

with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties and heard finally.

The Petition challenges the Order-in-Appeal No.SK/84/AppealsII/ME/2024-25 dated 30^th June 2024 by which the Petitioner’s Appeal before Respondent No. 2 was dismissed, inter alia, on the ground that the

Page 1 of 3 APRIL 1, 2025

Mohite

46 wp4982-24.doc

authorized signatory of the Petitioner did not sign the same. Respondent No.2 held that since no proof, such as a board resolution was produced, it could not accept the Appeal instituted by the authorized signatory.

In almost identical circumstances, this Court has entertained and allowed several Petitions where appeals were rejected by the same Officer because they were not instituted or signed by the authorized signatories.

In this regard, we have perused Orders of this Court dated 22^nd August, 2024 in Writ Petition (L) No. 26123 of 2024, 13^th August 2024 in Writ Petition No. 11298 of 2024 and 24^th October 2024 in Writ Petition (L) No.32758 of 2024.

The facts in the present case are also not significantly different. Proper material has been produced to show that the signatory on the Appeal memo was indeed authorized to sign the same. Similarly, if Respondent No.2 had any objections on entertaining any evidence or submissions, he should have put the Petitioner to notice. Denial of such opportunity violates the principles of natural justice and fair play.

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned Order dated 30^th June 2024 and restore the Petitioner’s Appeal to file of Respondent No.2 for fresh consideration on its merits and as per law.

Page 2 of 3 APRIL 1, 2025

Mohite

46 wp4982-24.doc

All contentions of the parties are kept open. Respondent No.2 shall grant an opportunity of hearing to all the parties and pass a reasoned order.

Respondent No.2 is requested to dispose of the Appeal as expeditiously as possible and in any event, on or before 30^th June, 2025. This order should be communicated to the parties no sooner than it is made.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.]

[B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

Page 3 of 3 APRIL 1, 2025

Mohite