Ranjit Bajaj Power of attorney holder of Anil Bajaj vs the Deccan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Ranjit Bajaj Power of attorney holder of Anil Bajaj vs the Deccan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; the interim application is dismissed subject to the clarification that the applicant remains at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings as permissible in law regarding his grievance.

Issue for consideration

Whether Mr. Ranjit Bajaj, appearing in person as Applicant (POA of Anil Bajaj) and claiming ownership of flat no. 101 in Ocean View, should be permitted to intervene in Commercial Suit No. 21 of 2026. +1 more

Court's answer

There is no question of permitting the applicant to intervene in this suit.

Ratio / Principle

The applicant's grievance in respect of ownership of Flat no. 101 of Ocean View is not the subject matter of the suit and cannot be adjudicated therein, because the suit is filed for performance of the terms of the development agreement executed by the society in favour of the plaintiff.

Key takeaways

The applicant is at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings as permissible in law with respect to the grievance made in this application.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Coram: Gauri Godse, J.; dated 8 June 2026; Interim Application No. 2626 of 2026 in Commercial Suit No. 21 of 2026 (Purvankara Limited v. The Deccan Co-operative Housing Society Limited & other Defendants). Held: (i) the suit is filed for performance of the terms of a development agreement executed by the society in favour of the plaintiff, and Flat no. 101 of Ocean View, of which the applicant claims ownership, is not its subject matter; (ii) accordingly the applicant's ownership grievance cannot be adjudicated in this suit and there is no question of permitting him to intervene; (iii) the applicant is at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings as permissible in law in respect of his grievance. Disposition: Interim application dismissed subject to that clarification. No statute or precedent is cited in this short order. Learned counsel for the plaintiff had submitted that the suit sought no relief in respect of Flat no. 101; the court's refusal of intervention rests on the flat being outside the suit's subject matter.

57-IA-2626-2026.docx

rrpillai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2626 OF 2026 IN

COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 21 OF 2026

Mr. Ranjit Bajaj	… Applicant
In the matter between
Purvankara Limited	… Plaintiff

Vs.

The Deccan Co-operative … Defendants Housing Society Limited

Mr. Ranjit Bajaj, POA of Anil Bajaj in person for the Applicant. Mr. Mutahhar Khan a/w. Ms. Sanyukta Karne and Mr. Satvik Tejasvi i/b. M/s. Khaitan & Co. for the Plaintiff.

Mr. Omkar Khanvilkar for Defendant No. 17 to 19 and 21, 32, 33 and 34.

Mr. Nikhil Rajani i/b. M/s. V. Deshpande & Co., for Defendant No. 27.

Ms. Bharati Indulkar (through VC) for Defendant.

Mr. Amit A Patil a/w. Mr. Aditya Nikam I/B. APLC for the Applicant in IAL/9359/2026.

Mr. Adiyta Miskita, Mr. Umair Merchant, Ms. Aayushi Gohil and Ms. Rima Ajmerwala i/b. M/s. M. T. Miskita & Co. for Defendant No.1.

Mr. Ziyad Madon and Ms. Pooja Vasandani, Ms. Nishi Doshi i/b. M/s. Rashmikant and Partners for the Applicants in IA/697/2026.

Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Rishi Patodia and Mr. Atharva Gade i/b. M/s. Jayakar and Partners

Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAJESHWARIRAMESH RAMESH PILLAI PILLAI Date: 2026.06.10 15:07:15 +0530

1/3

57-IA-2626-2026.docx

for Defendant no. 2.

Mr. Aditya Shiralkar a/w. Mr. Manish Shukla i/b. Mr. Vijay Kanoria for defendant nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15 and 16. Mr. Rohan Cama a/w. Mr. Rahul Soman, Ms. Madhu Gadodia, Ms. Amruta Thakur i/b. Naik Naik & Co. for the Defendant nos. 3 and 4.

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 8^th JUNE 2026

ORDER :

This application is filed for intervention in the suit on the

ground that the applicant is owner of flat no. 101 in Ocean View. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the suit does not seek any relief in respect of flat no. 101 in Ocean View. The applicant who appears in person has a grievance in respect of flat no. 101 on basis of his claim of ownership

regarding Flat no. 101 of Ocean View, which is not the subject matter of the suit. Hence, the grievance in respect of ownership of the said flat cannot be adjudicated in this suit which is filed for performance of the terms of development agreement executed by the society in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, there is no question of permitting the applicant to

intervene in this suit.

2/3

57-IA-2626-2026.docx

The applicant is at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings as permissible in law with respect to the grievance made in this application.

Interim application is dismissed subject to aforesaid clarification.

[GAURI GODSE, J.]

3/3