Bombay High Court
MODERN INDIA LTD THROU. SIDHANT JATIAversusJITENDRA RAMNATH BHOSLE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court cannot decide the prayer for injunction against Respondents Nos.2 to 6 as it was not part of the earlier order, and the petitioner may approach the Court with a fresh application.
Summary
Petitioner Bhalchandra Dusane filed a writ petition seeking an injunction against Respondents Nos.2 to 6, alleging that the earlier order of 17 July 2026 only granted an ad‑interim ex parte injunction against Respondent No.1. The Court observed that the order on record did not contemplate any relief against Respondents 2‑6 and therefore could not entertain that part of the prayer. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner remains free to file a fresh application for injunctive relief against those respondents. The petition was consequently disposed without granting any injunction against Respondents 2‑6.
Issues considered
- Whether the Court can grant an injunction against Respondents Nos.2 to 6 when the earlier order only addressed Respondent No.1
Subjects
- injunction
- writ petition
- interim order
- procedural defect
- composite application
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.11614 OF 2026
BHALCHANDRA Modern India Limited .... Petitioner
GOPAL
DUSANE through Sidhhant Jatia, Ex.Director
Digitally signed by
BHALCHANDRA
GOPAL DUSANE Vs.
Date: 2026.09.05
12:58:32 +0530 Jitendra Ramnath Bhosle & Ors. .... Respondents
Mr. Jamshed Master a/w Sanidha Vedpathak, Abbas Tinwalla i/by Maneksha
& Sethna for Petitioner.
Mr. Vivek R. Walavalkar i/by Mr. Sameer R. Bhalekar for Respondent no.1.
Mr. Ranjeev Carvalho a/w Aman Saraf, Rishab Murali, Sakshi Agarwal i/by
Bipin Joshi for Respondent no.2.
Mr. Sanjiv Sawant a/w Bhakti Wast i/b Heramb Kadam for Respondent no.3.
Mr. Sachin Shetye for Respondent nos. 4 and 6.
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 2nd September 2026
P.C. :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner presses the application seeking an
injunction against Respondent Nos.2 to 6. However, the Order dated 17 th
July 2026 indicates that the Appellant had sought an ad-interim ex parte
injunction only against Respondent No.1. The said Order does not indicate
that the Applicant had prayed for an injunction against Respondent Nos. 2
to 6.
1/2
905 WP 11614.26.doc Dusane
3. Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the application was a composite
application against Respondent Nos. 1 to 6. However, the order records that
the Applicant sought an injunction only against Respondent No. 1.
Therefore, the order does not address or decide the prayer for injunction
against Respondent Nos. 2 to 6.
4. The Applicant is at liberty to approach this Hon’ble Court for
appropriate injunctive relief against Respondent Nos. 2 to 6.
5. If such an application is filed, or if the instant application is taken up
for reconsideration qua Respondent Nos. 2 to 6, the Court shall decide the
same in accordance with law.
6. The Writ Petition is disposed of.
[ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ]
2/2
905 WP 11614.26.doc Dusane
Checking your session…