Disposed¶22

Indirosse Trading Private Limited. and Anr. v. Amarjee Jha

Bombay HC21 Jan 2026IA/7986/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC; OOCJ; IA 7986/2025 in WP 3041/2019; Indirosse Trading Private Limited & Anr v State of Maharashtra & Ors; interest on refunded stamp duty; Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps (Respondent No.2); Division Bench order dated 20/12/2024; deadline 31/03/2025 missed; representations decided 31/10/2025; withdraw with liberty; contentions left open; disposed 21-01-2026; Kotwal & Patil JJ.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the Interim Application with liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings in accordance with law; the application disposed of as withdrawn, with all contentions of the Applicants left open. ¶22

Indirosse Trading Private Limited. and Anr. vs Amarjee Jha — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether an Interim Application is maintainable in a Petition that has already been disposed of. +2 more

¶15

Ratio / Principle

In view of the representations having been decided on 31/10/2025, the Applicants will have to challenge the said order if they are aggrieved at all.

¶17

Key takeaways

Permission is granted to withdraw the Interim Application, with liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings in accordance with law in the changed circumstance of the passing of the order by the original Respondent No.2; the application is accordingly allowed to be withdrawn and disposed of.ratio¶22
All the contentions raised by the Applicants are left open.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Sarang V. Kotwal & Sandesh D. Patil, JJ. — Interim Application No. 7986 of 2025 in disposed Writ Petition No. 3041 of 2019 (Indirosse Trading Private Limited & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.), decided 21 January 2026. By order dated 20/12/2024 the Division Bench had directed Respondent No.2, The Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps, to decide the Applicants' applications/representations for payment of interest on refunded stamp duty on or before 31/03/2025; that timeline lapsed without any order. On this IA being taken up, the AGP informed the Court that the representations had been decided on 31/10/2025 and the order would be communicated in accordance with rules. The Court held that the Applicants, if aggrieved, would have to challenge that order; counsel thereupon sought permission to withdraw the IA with liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Permission granted; the IA allowed to be withdrawn and disposed of; all contentions of the Applicants left open. The Court did not itself pronounce on the maintainability of an IA in a disposed-of Petition.

¶1

1 / 3 05-IA-7986-25-IN-WP-3041-19.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7986 OF 2025 IN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3041 OF 2019

¶5

Indirosse Trading Private Limited & Anr. .... Applicants IN THE MATTER BETWEEN : Indirosse Trading Private Limited & Anr. .... Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents …....

¶6

Ms. Veenu C. Khatri, Advocate for Applicants/Petitioners.

¶7

Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP a/w Mr. Prashant Kamble, a/w Mr. Rakesh Pathak, AGP for State/Respondents.

¶8

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 21^st JANUARY, 2026

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

MANUSHREE NESARIKAR

¶11

Digitally signed by MANUSHREE NESARIKAR Date: 2026.01.29 10:47:42 +0530

¶12

This is an Interim Application in a disposed of Petition. Learned counsel for the Applicants/Petitioners submitted that the Division Bench of this Court vide the order dated 20/12/2024 in the present Petition had directed the Respondent No.2 The Inspector General of Registration and Controller of

¶13

Nesarikar

¶14

2 / 3 05-IA-7986-25-IN-WP-3041-19.odt

¶15

Stamps, to decide the applications/representations made by the Applicants herein for payment of interest on the refunded stamp duty on or before 31/03/2025. According to the learned counsel for the Applicants, this timeline was not adhered to and no order was passed till 31/03/2025. Therefore, the present application is filed. Learned counsel for the Applicants could not point out as to how an Interim Application in a disposed of Petition was maintainable.

¶16

However, learned AGP appearing in this case stated before the Court that The Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps, has decided the Applicants' representations on 31/10/2025 and the order shall be communicated in accordance with rules to the Applicants.

¶17

Considering this situation, the Applicants will have to challenge the said order if they are aggrieved at all.

¶18

When we expressed our opinion, learned counsel for

¶19

the Applicants sought permission to withdraw this application

¶20

3 / 3 05-IA-7986-25-IN-WP-3041-19.odt

¶21

with liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings in accordance with law in the changed circumstance of passing of the order by the original Respondent No.2.

¶22

Permission is granted. The application is allowed to be withdrawn with such liberty and is disposed of.

¶23

All the contentions raised by the Applicants are left

¶24

open.

¶25

(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)

¶26

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Indirosse Trading Private Limited. and Anr. v. Amarjee Jha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indirosse Trading Private Limited. and Anr. v. Amarjee Jha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra vs Umesh Alias Sagar Nandu Sawant and Anr.

Manju Dinesh Jaiswar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Madhurajsing @ Rajasing Darogasing Badoria vs State of Maharashtra

Kutbuddin Allauddin Khan vs the State of Maharashtra

Gurpreet Kaur Sahota vs State of Maharashtra

Shivam Vedprakash Tiwari vs State of Maharashtra