Disposed¶22

Smc Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Throu. the Ministry of Finance Dept of Expenditure and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Jan 2026WP/341/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vivad se Vishwas II (Contractual Disputes) Scheme; application No. SR9351692352016595 dated 18.08.2023; SMC Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India; Bombay High Court Writ Petition No. 341 of 2026; writ of mandamus; acceptance and approval of Scheme application; representation to be considered on merits; reasoned order within 60 days; Respondent No.2 directed to reconsider; Petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No.2 to consider the Petitioner's representation/application dated 18 August 2023 in accordance with the law and the applicable policies, pass a reasoned order, and complete the exercise within 60 days from the date of the judgment. ¶22

Smc Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India Throu. the Ministry of Finance Dept of Expenditure and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent No.2 will consider the Petitioner's representation (application dated 18.08.2023 under the Vivad se Vishwas II (Contractual Disputes) Scheme) on its merits, applying the law and applicable policies and passing a reasoned order.

¶21

Court's answer

The Court confined the matter to consideration of the Petitioner's representation on its merits, requiring Respondent No.2 to apply the law and the policies to the application and pass a reasoned order.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The Petition was disposed of with a direction to Respondent No.2 to consider the representation/application dated 18 August 2023 in accordance with the law and the policies applicable, pass a reasoned order, and complete the exercise within 60 days.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 341 of 2026 (decision date per digital signature 17.06.2026) - SMC Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. The Petitioner's solitary prayer (clause (i)) sought a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents, particularly Respondent No.2, to forthwith accept and approve its application dated 18.08.2023 bearing No. SR9351692352016595 under the Vivad se Vishwas II (Contractual Disputes) Scheme and extend settlement benefits with time-bound consequential steps. Coram: Ravindra V. Ghuge, ACJ. and Gautam A. Ankhad, J. Holding: the Court confined the matter to the Petitioner's representation being considered on its merits and disposed of the Petition, directing Respondent No.2 to consider the representation/application dated 18 August 2023 in accordance with the law and the policies applicable, to pass a reasoned order, and to complete the exercise within 60 days. No precedent was cited and no statutory provision (other than the Scheme) was invoked; no monetary quantum arises.

¶1

902.WP-341-2026.odt

¶2

Digitally signed by GAURI GAURI AMIT 902.WP-341-2026.odt AMIT GAEKWAD GAEKWAD Date: 2026.06.17 12:21:10 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.341 OF 2026

¶4

SMC Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. ….Petitioner Versus

¶5

Union of India and Anr. ….Respondents

¶6

Mr. Shardul Singh a/w. Advocate Smeet Savla and Ms. Hridyanshi Sharma i/b. SHS Chambers for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mrs. Sangeeta Yadav (through video conferencing) a/w. Mr. Ashutosh Mishra and Mr. Umesh Gupta for Respondent No.1. Mr. Sheroy M. Bodhanwalla a/w. Ms. Sayali Puri, Mr. Rohan Jadhav, Mr. Akash Singh and Mr. Shreyas Thakur i/b. M.S. Bodhanwalla and Co. for Respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ACJ. &

¶9

GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

¶10

P.C. :-

¶11

1. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the

¶12

solitary prayer put forth by the Petitioner is in terms of prayer clause

¶13

(i). The said prayer clause reads as under :

¶14

(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents (particularly Respondent No.2) to forthwith accept and approve the Petitioner's application dated 18.08.2023 bearing No.SR9351692352016595 under the Vivad se Vishwas II (Contractual Disputes) Scheme and to extend the benefit of settlement thereunder to the

1 of 2

Gauri Gaekwad

902.WP-341-2026.odt

Petitioner, by taking all consequential steps within a fixed and time-bound period, strictly in accordance with the Scheme and applicable law.

¶19

The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 has addressed us for some time. Instead of

¶20

adverting to the prayer, he is on a completely different issue.

¶21

The issue is only of the representation of the Petitioner being considered on its merits. Respondent No.2 has to apply the law and the policies to such application and pass a reasoned order.

¶22

In view of the above, this Petition is disposed off with a direction to Respondent No.2 to consider the representation/ application of the Petitioner dated 18^th August, 2023 in accordance with the law and the policies applicable, and a reasoned order be passed. Let this exercise be completed within a period of 60 days from today.

¶23

(GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶24

2 of 2

¶25

Gauri Gaekwad

Smc Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Throu. the Ministry of Finance Dept of Expenditure and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smc Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Throu. the Ministry of Finance Dept of Expenditure and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Amogh Nandakumar Kulkarni vs Karjat Municipal Council and Anr.

Sirvi Vikas Seva Sanstha Kharghar and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra Thr Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

Mahindra and Mahindra Workers Union vs State of Maharashtra through Shri Ashok N. Bahir

Abdul Rauf Abdul Razzak Patel vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ms Jagrutee Nagindas Rana vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Liladhar Manikrao Duphare vs the State of Maharashtra