Madanmohan Chandrabhan Gupta Sole Proprietor of Ms Advance Advertisers vs Santacruz West Education Society — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Madanmohan Chandrabhan Gupta Sole Proprietor of Ms Advance Advertisers vs Santacruz West Education Society — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief awarded. With the Order dated 1st October 2025 confirmed as complied with, the Contempt Petition was disposed of. Context recorded: Respondents' undertaking to grant the Petitioner access to the hoarding structure for change of Vinyle/display whenever required (including during vacation) as per that Order; and the Petitioner remains at liberty to file a repair Application in L.D. Suit No. 32 of 2021, to be decided by the learned Trial Court on its own merits, with merits expressly kept open by this Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Order dated 1st October 2025 passed by this Court was violated — in effect, whether the Respondents restrained the Petitioner from user of the subject hoarding contrary to that Order.

Ratio / Principle

The Court held that the Order dated 1st October 2025 stands complied with, that nothing survives in the Contempt Petition, and disposed of the Contempt Petition.

Key takeaways

By express clarification, this Court has not considered the merits of the Petitioner's contemplated repair Application in L.D. Suit No. 32 of 2021, and those merits are expressly kept open.ratio¶21
The Court directed that, if the Petitioner files the contemplated repair Application in L.D. Suit No. 32 of 2021, the same is to be decided by the learned Trial Court on its own merits.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Madhav J. Jamdar, J., 27 January 2026 — Contempt Petition No. 779 of 2025 in Writ Petition No. 467 of 2022: Madanmohan Chandrabhan Gupta (sole Proprietor of 'MS Advance Advertisers') v. Santacruz West Education Society. The Petitioner alleged violation of the Court's Order dated 1st October 2025, contending that he had been restrained from user of the subject hoarding. Respondents' Senior Counsel (S.M. Gorwadkar) relied on paragraph No. 4 of the Affidavit-in-Reply filed by Respondent No. 3 (one of the Trustees of Respondent No. 1) to submit that the Petitioner was not so restrained, and undertook, on instructions, to grant access to the hoarding structure for change of Vinyle/display of advertisements whenever required, even during vacation, as per the Order dated 1st October 2025. Petitioner's counsel (Girish Kedia) thereupon sought withdrawal and stated that the Petitioner will file an Application in L.D. Suit No. 32 of 2021 for necessary repairs to the subject hoardings. Holding the Order dated 1st October 2025 complied with, and expressly clarifying that the merits of any such repair Application were neither considered nor closed (if filed, to be decided by the learned Trial Court on its own merits), the Court found nothing survived in the Contempt Petition and disposed of it. No quantum, precedent or statutory provision engaged.

14 CP 779.25 IN WP 467.22.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 779 OF 2025

IN

WRIT PETITION NO.467 OF 2022

Madanmohan Chandrabhan Gupta …Petitioner sole Proprietor of MS Advance Advertisers Versus Santacruz West Education Society …Respondents

Mr. Girish Kedia, a/w Krushang Kedia for Petitioner in Contempt Petition.

Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar, Senior Counsel i/by Mr. Shashank Thatte and Mr. Yuvaraj Takale for Respondents.

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 27th January 2026

P.C.:

This Contempt Petition has been filed by taking contention

that the Order dated 1^st October 2025 passed by this Court has been violated. In effect, it is the contention of the Petitioner that

the Petitioner has been restrained from user of the subject hoarding.

Mr. Gorwardkar, learned Senior Counsel states that the Respondents have filed Affidavit-in-Reply of Respondent No.3 i.e one of the Trustee of Respondent No. 1 and points out paragraph

Page 1 of 2

Dusane

14 CP 779.25 IN WP 467.22.DOC

No.4 of the same. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the Petitioner has not been restrained from user of the subject hoarding. Learned Senior Counsel, on instructions, further submits that the Respondents will grant access to the Petitioner to the Hoarding structure for the change of Vinyle/display of the advertisements, whenever required, even during vacation, as per Order dated 1^st October 2025 of this Court.

In view of above, Mr. Kedia, learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks withdrawal of the Contempt Petition.

Mr. Kedia, learned Counsel states that the Petitioner will file an appropriate Application in L.D. Suit No. 32 of 2021 seeking that the Petitioner be allowed to carry out the necessary repairs to the subject hoardings. If such application is filed, the same be decided by the learned Trial Court on its own merits. It is clarified that this Court has not considered merits of such Application and the same are expressly kept open.

As the Order dated 1^st October 2025 is complied with, nothing survives in the Contempt Petition and the same is disposed of.

BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)

Digitally signed by BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE Date: 2026.01.27 19:43:33 +0530

Page 2 of 2

Dusane