Bombay High Court · 2025-02-21
VAISHNAVI ENGINEERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD THR ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE NAVIN K SINGH vs NAVNATH RAMKRISHNA MHATRE AND ORS
- Citation / case number
- WP/5611/2024
- Court
- Bombay High Court
- Petitioner
- VAISHNAVI ENGINEERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD THR ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE NAVIN K SINGH
- Respondent
- NAVNATH RAMKRISHNA MHATRE AND ORS
Judgment text excerpt
wp-5611-2024.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5611 OF 2024 M/s. Vaishnavi Engineers and Developers Private Limited (Through its Authorized Representative Navin Singh) ...Petitioner vs. VISHAL Navnath Ramkrishna Mhatre and Others ...Respondents SUBHASH PAREKAR Digitally signed by Mr. A.A. Karva, for the Petitioner. VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Date: 2025.02.21 Mr. Hemant Gadigaonkar a/w. Mr. Devidas Bhoir and Ms. Ashwini 19:55:46 +0530 Mhatre, for the Respondents. CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. RESERVED ON : JANUARY 30, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : FEBRUARY 21, 2025 JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 22 nd February, 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kalyan whereby an application preferred by the respondent/ original defendant to condone the delay of 9 years 4 months and 18 days in preferring an application to recall the order dated 20th April, 2013 permitting the petitioner/ plaintiff to withdraw the suit being R.C.S. No. 782 of 2012, came to be allowed. 3. The background facts leading to this petition can be Vishal Parekar ...1 wp-5611-2024.doc summarized as under:- (a) The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It was engaged in the business of real estate development. On 31st May, 2008 a Development Agreement was executed by the respondents and Janak Pandurang Mhatre and Motiram Kachru Mhatre is favour of the petitioners, thereby granting development rights in respect of the suit properties. The plaintiff claimed to have parted with consideration of Rs. 47 lakhs under the said agreement, and been put in possession of the s