Jayant Meghani v. Shree Tirupati Greenfield (Shree Tirupati Greenfield Developers)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7380 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL EXECUTION APPLICATION (L) NO. 28184 OF 2025 Jayant Meghani & Ors.
...Applicants V/s.
Shree Tirupati Greenfield (Shree Tirupati Greenfield Developers) & Ors.
...Respondents
WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7381 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL EXECUTION APPLICATION (L) NO. 28079 OF 2025 Taru Meghani & Ors.
...Applicants V/s.
Shree Tirupati Greenfield (Shree Tirupati Greenfield Developers) & Ors.
...Respondents
Mr. Narayan Sahu, through VC with Ms. Mamta Pagare i/b Mr. Ashish Pawar for the Applicant/Decree Holder.
None for the Respondents.
CORAM
:
ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE :
3rd DECEMBER, 2025 P.C. :
1.
Both these Interim Applications seek restoration of the respective Commercial Execution Applications, which came to be dismissed by virtue of a self operative order of this Court for none removal of office objections within the time granted by this Court. by NIKITA YOGESH GADGIL Date:
2025.12.04 20:14:03 +0530 NIKITA YOGESH GADGIL 1/3
2.
Mr. Sahu, learned Counsel appears for the Applicant in both the Interim Applications and submits that the Execution Applications came to be e-filed on 9th September, 2025 and the lodging numbers were allotted. That on 18th September, 2025, the Advocate of the Applicants received email of the objections and that on 21st September, 2025, the compliance were refiled. It is submitted that the matter came up on board before this Court on 22nd September, 2025 and this Court issued directions for listing the matter on 17th November, 2025 and upon enquiring from the department it was informed that the matter was dismissed on 14th November, 2025 due to non compliance of office objections.
3.
Mr. Sahu submits that the two Execution Applications are seeking to execute two different awards against which there has been no order. That the Applicants are senior citizens and that if the Execution Applications are not restored, the Applicants will suffer loss which will be irretrievable.
4.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the Applicants in the two Interim Applications and also perused the said Applications. 2/3
5.
Although it has been stated in the two Applications that due to non-compliance of further office objections raised on 30th September, 2025, which could not be complied with, two Execution Applications came to be dismissed, however, there is no screen shot or any other document annexed or exhibited to the Application to demonstrate the same. However, considering the submissions made on behalf of the Applicants, this Court is inclined to restore the Commercial Execution Applications, but not without imposing costs for failing to remove office objections within the time granted by this Court. 6.
Accordingly, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 15,000/- in each of the Interim Applications to be paid to the Bombay Panjarapole, within a period of two weeks, the respective Commercial Execution Applications (L) No. 28184 of 2025 and 28079 of 2025 be restored. 7.
Subject to above, let objections be removed and registered numbers be obtained within a period of four weeks. 8.
The Interim Applications accordingly stand allowed and disposed as above.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.) 3/3