Mr. Dilip Kishanlal Jain vs Nish Developers Private Limited — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Mr. Dilip Kishanlal Jain vs Nish Developers Private Limited — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Stay of the Trial Court's order dated 11.02.2026 and direction that no coercive steps be taken by the Corporation against the subject suit flat until the Notice of Motion is decided (and for four further weeks thereafter if that order is adverse); pleadings timelines fixed in the draft Notice of Motion; Appeal from Order and pending Interim Applications disposed with all contentions expressly kept open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the lis between the parties should be adjudicated in the Appeal from Order at this stage, given that the draft Notice of Motion is pending before the Trial Court. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the draft Notice of Motion is pending before the Trial Court, no purpose would be served by adjudicating the lis between the parties in the present Appeal from Order; the dispute is accordingly left to the Trial Court.

Ratio / Principle

Contentions taken by Mr. Sandeep Singh for Respondent No. 1 in the reply filed before this Court, including reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 19.07.2024, shall be considered by the learned Trial Court.

Key takeaways

The Plaintiff's contention seeking parity with more than 200 similarly placed flats in the Developer's project, for which the Developer has issued NOCs to those flat purchasers, will also be considered by the Trial Court.ratio¶¶21
Parties were directed to complete the pleadings in the said draft Notice of Motion; Respondent No. 1 - Developer to file its reply within two weeks, and any rejoinder within two weeks thereafter.ratio¶¶21
The impugned Trial Court order dated 11.02.2026 was stayed by this Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Appeal From Order (ST) No. 7999 of 2026, decided 09.04.2026 (Milind N. Jadhav, J.): Dilip Kishanlal Jain, org. plaintiff, v. Nish Developers Pvt Ltd & Ors., org. defendants. The Plaintiff, who had executed interior work in a bare-shell flat handed over by Respondent No. 1 - Developer, faced a Trial Court order dated 11.02.2026 rejecting ad-interim relief on the allegation that his construction deviated from the sanctioned plan, while his regularization application under S. 44, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 remained pending with the Corporation's Competent Authority / Designated Officer. Observing that the draft Notice of Motion was pending before the Trial Court, the High Court held adjudication of the lis unnecessary: it disposed of the A.O. and pending IAs, stayed the order dated 11.02.2026, barred coercive steps by the Corporation against the suit flat until the Notice of Motion is decided (plus four weeks if that decision is adverse), fixed pleadings timelines (Developer's reply in two weeks; rejoinder in a further two weeks), and directed the Trial Court to weigh Respondent No. 1's reliance on a Division Bench judgment of the High Court dated 19.07.2024 and the Plaintiff's parity plea based on NOCs issued to 200+ similarly placed flats in the same development, by a speaking reasoned order. All contentions were expressly kept open, with the Trial Court told not to be influenced by this Court's prima facie observations.

1. AOST-7999-26.odt

Amberkar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 7999 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 8001 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2563 OF 2026

Dilip Kishanlal Jain Appellant .. (Org. Plaintiff)

Versus Nish Developers Pvt Ltd & Ors. Respondents .. (Org Defendants)

Mr. Amogh Singh a/w Mr. Adita Upadhyay i/by Ms. Jeenal Upadhyay, Advocates for Appellant

Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate for Respondent No. 1

Mr. Sachin Vajale, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 - Corporation

Mr. Siddharth Sonawane SE(B&F) F/S Ward present

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : APRIL 9, 2026

P. C.:

1. Heard Mr. Amogh Singh, learned Advocate for Appellant; Mr.

Sandeep Singh, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1 - Developer and Mr. Vajale, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 - Corporation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Trial Court.

3. Application under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Regional and

Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short "MRTP" ) seeking regularization of

1 of 3

1. AOST-7999-26.odt

the construction undertaken by the Plaintiff has been filed and is pending with the concerned Competent Authority / Designated Officer of the Corporation. In the present case, it is an admitted position that subject flat was handed over to the Plaintiff by Respondent No. 1 - Developer as a bare shell flat and Plaintiff undertook interior construction of the same. By virtue of the impugned order, it is claimed that there is abberation committed by Plaintiff which is not in consonance with the sanctioned plan. Learned Trial Court has not found favour with the Plaintiff’s case and rejected the ad-interim relief which can be seen from the order dated 11.02.2026 (appended at Exh “A”, page Nos. 9-13 of the A.O.). The order dated 11.02.2026 is stayed.

4. Parties are directed to complete the pleadings in the said draft Notice of Motion. Reply is directed to be filed by Respondent No. 1 - Developer within a period of two weeks from today. Rejoinder, if any, shall be filed within two weeks thereafter. Though Mr. Singh has filed affidavit in reply in the present A.O., no purpose will be served by adjudicating the lis between the parties herein considering that Notice of Motion is pending before the Trial Court. Contentions taken by Mr. Sandeep Singh in the reply filed before this Court and reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 19.07.2024 shall be considered by learned Trial Court. Equally contention of Plaintiff seeking parity with almost more than 200 similarly placed flats in the

2 of 3

1. AOST-7999-26.odt

concerned development undertaken by the said Developer wherein the Developer has issued his NOC to those flat purchasers will also be considered by the Trial Court.

5. All contentions of Plaintiff and Defendants including that of Corporation are expressly kept open without this Court giving its imprimatur on merits of the matter. Learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made herein or ad-interim order passed in draft Notice of Motion since the said observations are prima facie and shall decide the Notice of Motion after hearing all parties by passing a speaking reasoned order.

All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.

It is directed that until the Notice of Motion is heard and decided by learned Trial Court, no coercive steps shall be taken against the subject suit flat of the Plaintiff by the Corporation in furtherance of the impugned order dated 11.02.2026 and in the event if the order passed in the said Notice of Motion is adverse, for a further period of four weeks thereafter to enable the Plaintiff to recourse of the law.

8. With the above directions, Appeal from Order is accordingly disposed. Pending Interim Applications are also disposed.

Amberkar

Digitally signed by RAVINDRA RAVINDRA MOHAN MOHAN AMBERKAR AMBERKAR Date:2026.04.09 20:20:40 +0530

3 of 3