DESERVE EMERALD REALTY PRIVATE LIMITEDversusADARSH KAPOL NAGAR

                                                                              15-WP-10252-2026.DOC




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                        WRIT PETITION NO. 10252 OF 2026


                      Deserve Emerals Realty Private Limited                        ..Petitioner
                            Versus
                      Adarsh Kapol Nagar Cooperative Housing Society             …Respondent
                      Limited


                      Mr. Mutahhar Khan, with Gaurav Aswani, i/b Rehan Chhapra, for the
ARUN                        Petitioner.
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
                      Mr. Prashant Gawali, with Shreya Mathane, for the Respondent.
Digitally signed by
ARUN RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Date: 2026.09.02
10:16:06 +0530                                     CORAM:          N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                   DATE :          29th AUGUST 2026


                      ORAL ORDER:

                      1.    Heard the learned for the parties.

                      2.    The challenge in this Petition is to a judgment and order dated

                      21st January 2026, passed by the learned District Judge, Vasai, in MCA

                      No. 23 of 2025, whereby the Appeal preferred by the Respondent-

                      Defendant/Judgment Debtor against an order dated 29 th April 2025 in

                      Civil MA No 121 of 2024, thereby restraining the Respondent from

                      creating any third party interest in the suit property until the disposal of

                      the said Application and to maintain status quo in respect of the

                      development and restraining it acting in contravention of Memorandum

                      of Understanding dated 19th February 2014, the Arbitral Award dated
                      ARS                                    1/3
                                                       15-WP-10252-2026.DOC

28th April 2017 and the Consent Terms in Arbitration Execution No. 440

of 2019, came to be allowed by setting aside the order passed by the

executing Court.

3.     The core controversy between the parties revolves around the

question as to whether the compromise memo filed before the Lok

Adalat on 25th September 2021, constitutes as an Award under the Legal

Services Authorities Act, 1987.

4.     The said compromise memo was filed in Arbitration RD No. 440

of 2019. By an order dated 11th December 2021, the Panel

Head, Lok Adalat and CJSD, Vasai, disposed of the said execution

proceeding as a withdrawal pursis (Exhibit “12”) was filed by the

Petitioner-Decree Holder. The learned Judge recorded that the Decree

Holder intended to withdraw the said proceeding as the decree stood

fully satisfied.

5.     In the backdrop of the aforesaid proceeding before the Lok Adalat

and the orders passed by the Panel Head, Lok Adalat and CJSD, Vasai,

on 11th December 2021, the learned District Judge was of the view that

the consent terms, which were executed between the parties on 25 th

September 2021, were in the nature of a separate agreement executed

between the parties and did not constitute an Award.

6.     Evidently, the Lok Adalat Panel has not disposed of the execution

proceeding on the basis of the consent terms executed between the


ARS                                  2/3
                                                        15-WP-10252-2026.DOC

parties on 25th September 2021. Instead, in view of the consent terms,

the Petitioner-Decree Holder chose to withdraw the RD asserting that

the decree had been fully executed. The consent terms do not have the

imprimatur of the Court as the Court had not passed an order in

accordance with the consent terms.

7.    In the aforesaid view of the matter, the learned District Judge was

justified in interfering with the order passed by the Executing Court.

8.    The Petitioners shall however have the liberty to institute a suit to

enforce the consent terms executed between the parties on 25 th

September 2021.

9.    In the event such a suit is instituted, the Civil Court will have due

regard to the proceedings that have taken place before the Executing

Court as well as the stand of the JD in the said proceedings and

Arbitration Petition (L) No. 23214 of 2024.

10.   It is clarified that this Court has not entered into the merits of the

matter.

11.   Petition disposed.



                                              [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




ARS                                    3/3