Disposed

Pooja Ranjit Bhujbal and Ors. v. Narayan Shankar Khunte and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Feb 2026WP/12234/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Consent Terms disposal; writ petition disposed by settlement; undertakings in Consent Terms accepted as undertakings to the Court; no coercion or duress found; Consent Terms marked 'X' do not bind non-parties; Vakalatnama of Tanmay Jadhav for respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d); Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; Jamadar J.; decision dated 17 February 2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in accordance with the Consent Terms marked 'X'; undertakings given in the Consent Terms accepted as undertakings to the Court.

Pooja Ranjit Bhujbal and Ors. Vs Narayan Shankar Khunte and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

901-WP12234-2025-SPM.DOC

¶2

Santosh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 12234 OF 2025

¶5

Pooja Ranjit Bhujbal and Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Narayan Shankar Khunte (deceased) through legal heirs and Ors. …Respondents

¶6

Mr. Sumit Kale i/by Dr. Uday P. Warunjikar, for the

¶7

Petitioners.

¶8

Mr. Tanmay Jadhav, for Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d).

¶9

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 17^th FEBRUARY, 2026

¶10

PC:-

¶11

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶12

Mr. Jadhav, the learned Counsel, submits that he has instructions to appear on behalf of respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d) and undertakes to file Vakalatnama.

¶13

Registry to accept the Vakalatnama of Mr. Jadhav, for respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d).

¶14

The learned Counsel for the parties submit that, the petitioners and respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d) have amicably resolved the dispute, and executed Consent Terms.

¶15

The learned Counsel for the parties seek leave to tender the Consent Terms.

¶16

1/3

¶17

Order corrected as per order dtd.4/3/2026.

¶18

901-WP12234-2025-SPM.DOC

¶19

Leave granted.

¶20

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are present before the Court and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 have appeared before the Court through Video Conferencing. Respondent No.1(a) is present before the Court. Respondent Nos.1(a) claims to be the Power of Attorney of respondent Nos.1(b) to 1(d). The parties admit the contents of the Consent Terms and execution thereof. The parties are identified by their respective Advocates.

¶21

Upon being enquired by the Court, respondent No.1(a) and petitioner Nos.1 to 4 state that they have read and understood the contents of the Consent Terms and they admit the same. They state that they will abide by the contents of the Consent Terms.

¶22

The parties appear to have resolved the dispute amicably, and the consent terms seem been executed voluntarily. It does not appear that there is any coercion or duress.

¶23

Consent Terms are thus taken on record and marked

¶24

‘X’.

¶25

The undertakings given in the Consent Terms ‘X’ are accepted as the undertakings to the Court.

¶26

2/3

¶27

Order corrected as per order dtd.4/3/2026.

¶28

901-WP12234-2025-SPM.DOC

¶29

The petition stands disposed in accordance with the

¶30

Consent Terms ‘X’.

¶31

It is, however, clarified that the Consent Terms ‘X’ shall not bind the persons, who are not the parties to these

Consent Terms ‘X’.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

3/3

Order corrected as per order dtd.4/3/2026.

Pooja Ranjit Bhujbal and Ors. v. Narayan Shankar Khunte and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooja Ranjit Bhujbal and Ors. v. Narayan Shankar Khunte and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases