Bombay High Court
KIMAYA WELLNESS LTDversusShree Siddhivinayak Developers
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
The court may permit withdrawal of the amount deposited before it provided the applicant gives an undertaking to redeposit if required.
Summary
Kimaya Wellness Ltd filed an interim application seeking to withdraw Rs.15,00,000 deposited before the High Court of Bombay in pending criminal revision matters. The respondents opposed the withdrawal, insisting that the applicant provide an undertaking to redeposit the amount if required. After hearing both sides, the court considered the submissions and the purpose of the deposit. The judge allowed the application, permitting the withdrawal of the amount subject to an undertaking by the applicant to redeposit the sum upon the court’s direction. The order disposed of the application on these terms.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to withdraw the amount deposited before the court
- Whether an undertaking to redeposit the amount is a necessary condition for withdrawal
Subjects
- interim application
- withdrawal of court deposited amount
- undertaking
- criminal revision
- court order
Judgment
903-IA-1410-2026.docx
N.S.Kamble
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1410 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.221 OF 2025
Kimaya Wellness Ltd
NILAM
Digitally signed
by NILAM
VERSUS
SANTOSH
SANTOSH KAMBLE
Shree Siddhivinayak Developers
KAMBLE Date: 2026.04.30
15:06:48 +0530
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1417 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.211 OF 2025
Kimaya Wellness Ltd
Versus
Shree Siddhivinayak Developers
Goradia Tushar Ajitkumar
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1420 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.279 OF 2025
Kimaya Wellness Ltd
Versus
Shree Siddhivinayak Developers
Goradia Tushar Ajitkumar
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1419 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.219 OF 2025
Kimaya Wellness Ltd
Versus
Shree Siddhivinayak Developers
Goradia Tushar Ajitkumar
Page 1 of 4
903-IA-1410-2026.docx
N.S.Kamble
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1415 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.180 OF 2025
Kimaya Wellness Ltd
Versus
Shree Siddhivinayak Developers
Goradia Tushar Ajitkumar
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1411 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.278 OF 2025
Kimaya Wellness Ltd
Versus
Shree Siddhivinayak Developers
Goradia Tushar Ajitkumar
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1416 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.210 OF 2025
Kimaya Wellness Ltd
Versus
Shree Siddhivinayak Developers
Goradia Tushar Ajitkumar
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1412 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2025
Kimaya Wellness Ltd
Versus
Shree Siddhivinayak Developers
Goradia Tushar Ajitkumar
WITH
Page 2 of 4
903-IA-1410-2026.docx
N.S.Kamble
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1413 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.178 OF 2025
Kimaya Wellness Ltd
Versus
Shree Siddhivinayak Developers
Goradia Tushar Ajitkumar
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1418 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.212 OF 2025
Kimaya Wellness Ltd
Versus
Shree Siddhivinayak Developers
Goradia Tushar Ajitkumar
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1414 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.179 OF 2025
Kimaya Wellness Ltd
Versus
Shree Siddhivinayak Developers
Goradia Tushar Ajitkumar
____________________________________________________________
Mr.Neuty Thakkar i/b Mr.Tushar Garadia, for the Applicant in IA/Original
Respondent No.1.
Mr.R.D. Humane, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr.Chandarani Gore a/w Mr.Amit Pradhan i/b Mr.Samir A. Vaidya, for
Respondent No.1.
____________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 28th APRIL 2026
Page 3 of 4
903-IA-1410-2026.docx
N.S.Kamble
P.C. :
. By this Applications, the Applicants is seeking withdrawal of the
amount. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that
Respondents have deposited Rs.15,00,000/- before this Court, hence, this
Court may permit the Applicant to withdraw the said amount.
2. The learned counsel for Respondents strongly objected for
allowing the Applications and submitted that if this Court permits the
Applicants to withdraw the amount, an undertaking be taken from the
Applicants to the effect that they will re-deposit the said amount as and
when required.
3. I have heard both learned counsel.
4. Considering the submissions of both learned counsel and the
reasons mentioned in the Applications, I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The Applications are allowed.
(ii) The Applicants are permitted to withdraw
Rs.15,00,000/- deposited before this Court with an
undertaking that they shall re-deposit the amount, if
required.
(iii) The Applications stands disposed of in above terms.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…