Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority v. Mumbai Metro One Private Limited
Before : Anil H. Laddhad CALLED FOR DIRECTIONS :
Ms. Prachi Garg a/w. Ms Prerna Verma, Ms Saylee Dolas, Ms Shikha Shah i/b. M/s. DSK Legal, Advocate for Petitioner 7.
CARBP/427/2024 with CARBA(L)/9325/2026 Mr. D.J. Kakalia a/w. Ms Bhavna Singh Jaipuria and Mr Paresh Patkar i/b. M/s. Mulla & Mulla CBC, Advocate for Respondent Ms. Nidhi Asher a/w. Ms Vidushi Trivedi, Advocate for NARCL.
P.C. : Today, this matter is placed on board in view of Order dated 24.02.2026 passed by the Hon'ble Court for disbursement of amount.
In the present matter, Petitioner deposited amount of Rs. 560,21,39,542/- on 24.07.2025. By virtue of Order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Court, the Hon'ble Single Judge, allowed Award with directions as mentioned in the operative part of the order.
Accordingly, both the parties submitted their calculations. The parties are agreeable to the claim of Respondent Nos. 1(a), 1(b), 2(b), 3(d), however, there is dispute with respect to claim of Claimant No. 6, more particularly, the interest part calculated by both the parties. According to Petitioner's calculation, total amount payable is Rs. 587,47,13,178/-.
Ld. Advocate for Petitioner raised dispute about disbursement of the amount. It has been argued that they have filed an Appeal and they are also .... 2
: 2 :
..... Continued having apprehension that in the event, Appeal is allowed, they will be unable to recover the amount, if disbursed.
The Petitioner has moved a praecipe dated 28.04.2026 before the Hon'ble Chief Justice requesting to take up the matter, however, due to non availability of Hon'ble Chief Justice, they were directed to mention the matter before the Hon'ble Division Bench presided by Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge.
Ld. Advocate for NARCL and Respondent No. 1 argued that similar praecipe was moved by the Petitioner on 18.04.2026 and the circulation was granted on 10.06.2026. Therefore, it is the contention that when the matter is already circulated on 10.06.2026, there is no direction given by the present Bench to mention the matter. It is further argued that the stay granted by the Hon'ble Court is expired on 21.04.2026. There is no stay by Appellate Curt, hence, the amount be disbursed as per the Order which is admitted by the Petitioner.
I have considered the submissions of both the sides. The Petitioner is disputing the amount of claim payable to NARCL, except Claim No. 6. Hence, in my view, the amount which is payable as per Petitioner's calculation can be disbursed to NARCL. In the event, the Petitioner succeeds in the Appeal, certainly, the Hon'ble Court will take care of amount so disbursed, but at present, I have to comply Order dated 24.02.2026. The amount of Rs. 587,47,13,178/- can be disbursed to NARCL .... 3
: 3 :
.... Continued subject to condition to NARCL to file undertaking that in the event, the Petitioner / Appellant succeeds in Appeal and if the Hon'ble Court directs, they shall refund the amount together with interest as directed by the Hon'ble Appellate Court with the Registry.
Ld. Advocate for NARCL opposed to give an undertaking on the ground that there no directions given by the Hon'ble Court in Order dated 24.02.2026. Hence, such directions are not acceptable. As Ld. Advocate for NARCL is insisting for disbursement of amount and Petitioner objected for such disbursement, in my view, directing the NARCL to furnish undertaking would meet both the ends and no prejudice would be caused to NARCL.
As there is dispute with regard to Claim No. 6, the balance amount after payment of Rs.
587,47,13,178/- is hereby invested so that the entitled parties will not loose interest. As there is dispute with respect to Claim No. 6, the parties are directed to take clarification from the Hon'ble Court.
Remove from board.
Date : 28.04.2026 Prothonotary & Senior Master