M/S. Sharda Constructions vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

M/S. Sharda Constructions vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of; liberty granted to the petitioner and to respondent no.3 to assert their contentions in the pending Civil Suit (Special Civil Suit No.49 of 2011), all contentions expressly kept open; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of the alleged letter of termination dated 1st April, 2025 issued by the office of Respondent No.2 should be entertained by the Court.

Court's answer

Whatever rights inter se exist between the petitioner and respondent no.3-society qua the agreement entered between them are the subject matter of consideration of the civil court in the pending Special Civil Suit No.49 of 2011, and such rights and conditions need to be asserted in that Civil Suit.

Ratio / Principle

The observations made by this Court in paragraph 3 of the order dated 9 April 2025 in Writ Petition No.4842 of 2025 are in no manner a reflection on the inter se dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.3.

Key takeaways

The Court was not inclined to entertain the petition and disposed of it with liberty to the petitioner as also to respondent no.3 to assert their contentions in the pending Civil Suit, with all contentions in that regard expressly kept open.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (G. S. Kulkarni & Advait M. Sethna, JJ.) declined to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by M/s. Sharda Constructions praying for quashing of the alleged letter of termination dated 1st April, 2025 issued by the office of Respondent No.2 (Exhibit-I to the Petition). Noting (i) the order dated 9 April 2025 passed in respondent no.3-society's Writ Petition No.4842 of 2025, whose paragraph-3 observations permitted the petitioners therein, upon paying the deficit/additional lease premium demanded by CIDCO, to have the Competent Officer resolve the issues, and (ii) the pendency of Special Civil Suit No.49 of 2011 before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Panvel between the petitioner and respondent no.3-society concerning their agreement, the Court held that the inter se rights qua the agreement fall for consideration in the pending Civil Suit; clarified that its paragraph-3 observations were in no manner a reflection on the inter se dispute; and disposed of the petition with liberty to both sides to assert their contentions in the Civil Suit, all contentions expressly kept open, with no costs.

Digitally signed by MULEY MULEY SHUBHAM SHUBHAM PRAVINRAO PRAVINRAO Date: 2025.04.24 18:20:56 +0530

1 906-WP-5448-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 5448 OF 2025

M/s. Sharda Constructions

...Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

Mr. Ashok M Saraogi a/w Sushil Upadhyay and Priti Rao for the Petitioner. Ms. P. J. Gavhane, AGP for the State-Respondent No.1.

Mr. G. S. Hegde, Senior Counsel a/w Rahul Sinha and Soham Bhalerao i/by DSK Legal for Respondent No.2.

Mr. R. D. Soni a/w Sujay Gawade, Sumedha Dhopate, Mudita Pawar and Manasi Sawant i/by Shree & Co. for Respondent No.3.

CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ. DATE : 23 APRIL 2025

P.C.:-

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed

praying for the following substantive relief:-

“a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order and direction directing the quashing of the alleged letter of termination dated 1st April, 2025 issued by the office of the Respondents No.2 appearing at Exhibit-I to the Petition on such terms as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

As fairly pointed out by Mr. Saraogi, learned counsel for the petitioner, the concern of the petitioner is in the context of an order dated 9 April 2025 passed by this Court in the writ petition filed by respondent no.3-society,

1/2

Shubham

2 906-WP-5448-2025.doc

namely, Writ Petition No.4842 of 2025, in which, this court in paragraph 3 made the following observations:-

“3. In the meantime, if the Petitioners are ready and willing to make the payment of the deficit/additional lease premium and satisfy the demand, which were raised by the CIDCO, they are free to take an appropriate position. In the event the Petitioners approach the Competent Officer, he shall take an appropriate view of the matter and make an endevour to resolve the issues.”

It is also informed to us by Mr . Saraogi that there is a Civil Suit pending before the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Panvel between the petitioner and respondent no.3-society being Special Civil Suit No.49 of 2011. In our opinion, whatever rights inter se between the petitioner and respondent no.3society qua the agreement as entered between them are subject matter of consideration of the civil court in the pending Suit. Such rights and conditions need to be asserted in the said Civil Suit.

Our observations made in paragraph 3 are in no manner a reflection on the inter se dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.3. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. We dispose of this petition with liberty to the petitioner as also to respondent no.3 to assert their contentions in the pending Civil Suit. All contentions in that regard are expressly kept open.

Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [G. S. KULKARNI, J.]

2/2

Shubham