Bhau Jaitu Nipurte vs Meenakshi G Panchabhai Nee… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

Bhau Jaitu Nipurte vs Meenakshi G Panchabhai Nee… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to treat Regular Civil Appeal No.16 of 2025 as not maintainable and dismiss the Appeal.

Court's answer

Yeshwant Gajanan Joshi is distinguishable on facts: in that case the Article 226 remedy was invoked against the Petroleum Company where a statutory remedy was available, and the conclusion that a litigant need not in all cases be relegated to the statutory remedy rested on the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, which are totally different from the present case.

Ratio / Principle

The Appellate Court will have to decide the Appeal on its own merits, considering all the contentions of the stakeholders/litigating parties.

Key takeaways

The Court finds no reason to entertain the Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.ratio¶¶32
The Petition is dismissed.ratio¶¶33
All contentions of the litigating parties are kept open for consideration by the Appellate Court.ratio¶¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction — Writ Petition No.5424 of 2025, decided 17th February, 2026 (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.) — Article 226 of the Constitution — maintainability of Regular Civil Appeal — The Petitioner, original Plaintiff, succeeded in Regular Civil Suit No.728 of 2001 by Trial Court judgment dated 16th February, 2024. Regular Civil Appeal No.16 of 2025 (registered 3rd February, 2025) is pending before the First Appellate Court, wherein the Petitioner is a Respondent and has already filed an application objecting to the maintainability of the Appeal as well as on merits. Seeking dismissal of the Appeal in writ jurisdiction, reliance was placed on Yeshwant Gajanan Joshi v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 1988 Mh. LJ 455. Held, distinguishing Yeshwant Gajanan Joshi (where the Article 226 remedy lay against the Petroleum Company, a statutory remedy was available, and the conclusion not to relegate the litigant rested on the peculiar facts of that case, which are totally different), the present Petition arises out of a completely different factual matrix; the Appellate Court must decide the Appeal on its own merits considering all contentions, and there is no reason to entertain the Petition under Article 226. Petition dismissed; all contentions of the litigating parties kept open before the Appellate Court. Referred: Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer, 2023 SCC Online SC 95 (issue of 'maintainability' and 'entertainability').

Digitally signed by GAURI AMIT GAURI GAEKWAD AMIT Date: GAEKWAD 2026.02.20 15:38:08 +0530

502.WP-5424-2025.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.5424 OF 2025

Bhau Jaitu Nipurte ….Petitioner

Versus

Meenakshi G. Panchabhai Nee Meenakshi Amol Pande & Ors. ….Respondents

Mr. C.S. Joshi a/w. Ms. Tanvi Nimbalkar and Advocate A.C. Joshi for the Petitioner.

None for the Respondents.

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

DATE : 17^th FEBRUARY, 2026

P.C. :-

This matter was mentioned at 11:00 a.m. today. Having

noticed that the grievance of the Petitioner is that Regular Civil Appeal No.16 of 2025 is pending before the First Appellate Court, arising out of Regular Civil Suit No.728 of 2001, we listed this matter at 3:00 p.m. by granting circulation.

We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner

at length. The contention of the Petitioner is that the said Appeal

filed before the Appellate Court should be treated as not

1 of 3

Gauri Gaekwad

502.WP-5424-2025.odt

maintainable and that this Court should exercise its Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and dismiss the Appeal. Reliance is placed on Yeshwant Gajanan Joshi & Ors. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors.¹

We have gone through the judgment delivered in Yeshwant Gajanan Joshi (supra). The facts of that case are totally different. The remedy under Article 226 was invoked as against the Petroleum Company. A statutory remedy was available. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, this Court concluded that in all cases, the litigant need not be relegated to the statutory remedy. The recent judgment on this point has been delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer & Ors.² , wherein the issue of ‘maintainability’ and ‘entertainability’ has been gone into.

Notwithstanding the above, the Petition before us arises

out of a completely different factual matrix. The Petitioner is the original Plaintiff. He succeeded by the judgment dated

1 1988 Mh. LJ 455

2 2023 SCC Online SC 95

2 of 3

Gauri Gaekwad

502.WP-5424-2025.odt

16^th February, 2024 delivered by the learned Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.728 of 2001. The Petitioner/Plaintiff is now a Respondent in Regular Civil Appeal No.16 of 2025. He has already filed his application objecting to the maintainability of the Appeal as well as on merits. The Appeal was registered on 3^rd February, 2025.

In such circumstances, we are of the view that the Appellate Court will have to decide the Appeal on its own merits, considering all the contentions of the stakeholders/litigating parties. We find no reason to entertain this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

6. This Petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Needless to state, all the contentions of the litigating parties are kept open for consideration by the Appellate Court.

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

3 of 3

Gauri Gaekwad