KUNAL SANCHETI ASSOCIATES THROUGH ITS PARTNER MR.HEMENDRA SHAHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

                                                                     902-ia-3183-2026-fa-784-2010.doc




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
            varsha
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                  INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3183 OF 2026
                                                        IN
                                       FIRST APPEAL NO. 784 OF 2010


                      Kunal Sancheti Associates through its … Applicant/Appellant
                      Partner Mr. Hemendra Shah
                                 vs.
                      The State of Maharashtra and Ors                    … Respondents
                      Mr. Mayuresh Ingale for the Applicant.
                      Mr. D.J. Haldankar, AGP for the Respondent-State.


                                                     CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
                                                      DATED : 18th SEPTEMBER 2026
VARSHA
VIJAY
RAJGURU
Digitally signed by
VARSHA VIJAY
RAJGURU               ORDER:
Date: 2026.09.19
11:29:25 +0530




                      1.    This application is filed by the original plaintiff seeking

                      withdrawal of the amount deposited by the applicant in this court

                      and for discharge and cancellation of the bank guarantee.

                      2.    Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the suit filed by

                      the applicant challenging the notice issued against the applicant

                      under Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966

                      was challenged by filing a suit. The plaint was rejected under Order

                      VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Hence, the applicant

                                                   Page no. 1 of 4
                                                902-ia-3183-2026-fa-784-2010.doc



had preferred the first appeal in this court. In the first appeal there

was an interim stay granted subject to the condition of depositing

part of the notice amount and furnishing a bank guarantee for part of

the amount. Pursuant to the said order the amount is deposited in

this court and the bank guarantee is also submitted in this court. He

further submits that in view of the change in the pecuniary

jurisdiction, the first appeal was transferred to the district court. The

appeal was allowed by the district court and the suit was restored.

By the judgment and decree dated 20th October 2021, the suit is

decreed and the impugned notice is declared illegal, null and void.

Accordingly, defendant no.3 was restrained from executing the order

for recovering the amount.

3.    Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the amount

deposited in this court and the bank guarantee submitted in this

court pursuant to the order dated 12th January 2011 have continued

to remain in this court. He submits that the decree in favour of the

applicant is not challenged by the respondent. Hence, the amount

deposited in this court be permitted to be withdrawn by the applicant

and the bank guarantee be cancelled. He submits that since the

amount is deposited in view of the impugned notice which now

stands cancelled, there is no liability on the applicant to make any


                              Page no. 2 of 4
                                                902-ia-3183-2026-fa-784-2010.doc



payment.

4.    Learned AGP was granted time on various occasions to verify

whether the decree in favour of the applicant is challenged.

However, learned AGP has no instructions as to whether the decree

is challenged. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per

the knowledge of the applicant, the decree in favour of the applicant

is never challenged by the respondents.

5.    I have perused the papers of the application and the decree

passed by the trial court. Learned counsel for the applicant is right in

submitting that in view of the decree in favour of the applicant, there

is no liability on the applicant to make payment to the respondent as

per the impugned notice which is declared as illegal. The amount

was deposited by the applicant as a condition for a stay in

implementing the impugned notice. Hence, the applicant is now

entitled to withdraw the amount and is also entitled to cancellation of

the bank guarantee.

6.    For the reasons recorded above, the interim application is

allowed by passing the following order:

      I)    The applicant is permitted to withdraw the amount

      deposited in this court pursuant to the order dated 12 th

      January 2011 along with the accrued interest, if any.
                              Page no. 3 of 4
                                                902-ia-3183-2026-fa-784-2010.doc



       II)    The amount be released in favour of the applicant on

       production of an authenticated copy of this order.

       III)   The bank guarantee submitted by the applicant

       pursuant to the order dated 12th January 2011, stands

       discharged. The bank guarantee shall be returned to the

       applicant for submitting it before the concerned bank for

       cancellation.

7.     All the concerned parties shall act on the authenticated copy

of this order.

8.     Interim Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.




                                                         (GAURI GODSE, J.)




                              Page no. 4 of 4