Disposed¶27

Mrs. Rujuta Mandar Thatte v. Forefront Private Limited

Bombay HC30 Mar 2026CP/564/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Contempt Petition No. 564 of 2025 in IA No. 6658 of 2024 in Second Appeal No. 330 of 2021, Sharmila U. Deshmukh J., order dated 28 April 2026. Non-compliance of Consent Terms accepted as undertaking to the Court by order dated 14.08.2024; lump sum Rs. 22,50,000/- settlement in three installments; cheques dishonoured "stopped by the drawer"; no-objection for Co-operative Housing Society membership not given; prima facie case of contempt found; notice under Chapter LVIII of Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules; next date 8 June 2026.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under Chapter LVIII of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules; matter stood over to 8th June 2026. ¶27

Mrs. Rujuta Mandar Thatte vs Forefront Private Limited — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Digitally signed by SHAGUFTA QUTBUDDIN SHAGUFTA PATHAN QUTBUDDIN Date: PATHAN 2026.04.29 19:20:55 +0530

¶2

49-CP-564-2025.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.564 OF 2025 IN

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6658 OF 2024 IN

¶6

SECOND APPEAL NO.330 OF 2021

¶7

Rujuta Mandar Thatte & Anr. ...Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Forefront Private Limited & Ors. ...Respondents

¶10

Mr. P. J. Thorat a/w Ms. Aditi Suresh Naikare for the Petitioners

¶11

Ms. Yogi Brahmbhatt a/w Ms. Shravani Deshmukh i/b Mandlik & Partners for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3

¶12

——————

¶13

CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : APRIL 28, 2026

¶14

P. C. :

¶15

1. The Contempt Petition has been preferred for non-compliance of

¶16

the Consent Terms executed between the Petitioners and the

¶17

Respondents, by which the Second Appeal came to be disposed of.

¶18

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are not in a position to comply with the order.

¶19

3. Under the Consent Terms, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had agreed to pay a lump sum of Rs. 22,50,000/- to the present Petitioners by way of full and final settlement. The amounts were to be paid in three

¶20

1/2

¶21

SQ Pathan

¶22

49-CP-564-2025.doc

¶23

installments, i.e., Rs. 2,50,000/- to be paid on or before 5^th September 2024; Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid on or before 1^st March 2025; and Rs. 15,00,000/- to be paid on or before 15^th June 2025.

¶24

4. It is further pointed out that the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 had agreed to give a no-objection to the Petitioners for being admitted as members of the concerned Co-operative Housing Society and to pay necessary charges in connection thereof, which has also not been complied with.

¶25

5. Mr. Thorat would submit that the cheques of the 2^nd and 3^rd installments were returned dishonoured with the intimation memo as “stopped by the drawer”. He would further submit that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have failed to give no objection, by reason of which the present Petitioners have not yet been admitted as members.

¶26

6. Prima facie , there is non-compliance of the Consent Terms, which were accepted as an undertaking given to this Court by order dated 14^th August 2024. Prima facie , a case of contempt is made out.

¶27

7. Issue notice to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under Chapter LVIII of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules.

¶28

8. Stand over to 8^th June 2026.

¶29

[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]

¶30

2/2

¶31

SQ Pathan

Mrs. Rujuta Mandar Thatte v. Forefront Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Rujuta Mandar Thatte v. Forefront Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Venubai Punja Bhandure Deceased through His Legal Heirs vs Natwarlal Chimanlal Shah and Ors.

Focus Imaging and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors. vs United Petro Finance Limited

Shiva Texyarn Ltd. vs Louis Dreyfus Company India Pvt. Ltd.

Kaynet Finance Limited vs Rajendra S Daga

Basantraj Sethia vs Ram Amarjeet Pal

Ubs Business Solutions (India) Private Limited vs Nisheet Singh