DILIPKUMAR RAMESHCHANDRA PATELversusAJMERA ENTERPRISES

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                  CONTEMPT PETITION NO.573 OF 2024
                               WITH
              INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.25708 OF 2026
                               WITH
              INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.19820 OF 2026


Dilipkumar Rameshchandra Patel          ....   Petitioner
        Vs.
Ajmera Enterprises                      ....   Respondent


Mr. Shravan M. Vyas, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Dushyant Krishnan for Respondent nos. 2, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13.
Mr. Aansh Desai a/w P.J. Shah for Respondent no.3.
Mr. Saurish Shetye a/w Mr. Karan Singh i/b Jenil Shah for Respondent no. 4.
Mr. Parth P. Shah for Respondent no. 5.
Mr. Prathamesh Bhargude a/w Ms. Khushboo Shah for Respondent nos. 6
and 7.
Mr. Hiten Ajmera, Respondent no. 5 – present in-person.


                                  CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
                                  DATE   : 17th September 2026

P.C. :


1.       The present Contempt Petition has been filed alleging violation of the

Order dated 11th January 2024. In particular, paragraphs 40 and 41 of the

said Order, which are relevant for the purposes of the present Contempt

Petition, are reproduced below:


                                       1/5
11 CP 573.24+.doc                                                     Dusane
        “40. The advocate for the respondent/landlord submits that
        the applicant/defendant should also clear the entire
        outstanding of agreed rent amount which according to him is
        Rs.34,81,602/-. Mr. Bansal, advocate for the applicant/original
        defendant has disputed this position. According to him the
        entire rent has been paid.

        41. Mr. Bansal on instruction from his client submits that if
        there is any outstanding amount, the same will be directly paid
        to the respondent landlords, within a period of three months.
        The said undertaking is accepted as an undertaking given to
        this Court.”

2.     Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondents have

violated the aforesaid order.

3.     Perusal of the Order would indicate that it is the contention of the

landlord that an amount of Rs. 34,81,602/- is due and outstanding. The

learned Advocate for the original Defendant, however, has disputed the said

position and submitted that the entire rent has been paid. However, on

instructions, the learned Advocate for the Defendants has further stated that,

if any amount is found to be outstanding, the same would be paid to the

Respondent-landlord within a period of three months.

4.     The said statement/undertaking is accepted as an undertaking given to

this Court.

5.     Learned counsel for the Contempt Petitioner submits that paragraph

44, in particular, clearly shows that a statement was made on instructions

that the outstanding amount would be paid within three weeks. He further
                                      2/5
11 CP 573.24+.doc                                                     Dusane
points out the communication dated 21st May 2010.

6.     Learned counsel relies upon the communication dated 7th May 2024

addressed by the partners of M/s. Ajmera Enterprises and the legal heirs of

the deceased partners of M/s. Ajmera Enterprises. In particular, he draws

attention to paragraph 4 thereof, which is reproduced below for ready

reference:

        “4. Further, please note that we are in financial difficulty as
        majority of the partners have expired and our family is also in
        financial difficulty, of which even your client is aware of, and
        therefore on humanitarian ground as well by an act of
        sympathy, your client is requested to waive off the
        outstanding rent and the mesne profit, if any claimed by your
        client. Your client's settlement amount would have provided
        some financial relief to us, but due to Mr. Hiren Ajmera's non-
        cooperation the same could not materialize.”

Wherein, in the communication addressed to the Petitioner’s Advocate, it is

stated that the Defendants are facing financial difficulties, as the majority of

the partners have expired and their respective families are also experiencing

financial hardship, of which the Petitioner is admittedly aware. In view

thereof, the Petitioner was requested, on humanitarian grounds and as an act

of sympathy, to waive the outstanding rent and mesne profits, if any, claimed

by the Petitioner.

7.     Learned counsel has also relied upon the communication dated 21st

May 2010 to contend that certain rent dues were outstanding. However, the

                                      3/5
11 CP 573.24+.doc                                                      Dusane
said communication, being dated 31st May 2010, is much prior in point of

time to the order passed by this Court in January 2024. Consequently, the

said communication cannot be relied upon for determining the position as it

stood at the time of the order passed by this Court.

8.     The communication dated 7th May 2024 would indicate that the plea

is made on humanitarian grounds, and that the outstanding rent and mesne

profits, if any, claimed by the Contempt Petitioner, be given up. However,

there is no clear admission of any liability in favour of the Petitioner.

9.     The submission made by the learned Advocate appearing for the Writ

Petitioner before this Court, as recorded in the order dated 11th January

2024, on instructions, is twofold. First, it is submitted that the entire rent has

been paid and that there are no outstanding amounts. It is further submitted

that, in the event any amount is found to be outstanding, the same shall be

paid to the landlord.

10.    The position as regards the outstanding amount remains disputed, and

there is no clear undertaking to this Court that the particular amount would

be paid to the Petitioner. No case of contempt is made out with reference to

paragraphs 40 and 41 of the order of this Court. However, liberty is reserved

to the Contempt Petitioner to recover any outstanding amount, if any, in

accordance with law.

                                       4/5
11 CP 573.24+.doc                                                        Dusane
11.    Accordingly, the Contempt Petition is dismissed.

12.    In view of the dismissal of the Contempt Petition, Interim

Applications do not survive, the same are also disposed of.



                                                [ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ]




                                    5/5
11 CP 573.24+.doc                                               Dusane