Bombay High Court
F. N. SOCIAL EDUCATION MEDICAL CHARITIES TRUSTversusPUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court held that the developer had complied with the Supreme Court’s deposit condition and the Supreme Court had subsequently relaxed the embargo, so the PMC’s permissions were lawful.
Summary
The F.N. Social Education Medical Charities Trust challenged the Pune Municipal Corporation’s (PMC) permission granted to Goel Ganga India Pvt. Ltd. to develop a property it claimed was gifted to the Trust, alleging the developer obtained the land through a forged will. The Supreme Court (referred to as the Apex Court) had imposed a Rs 100 crore damages award on the developer and ordered a six‑month deadline for deposit of Rs 40 crores, after which the developer’s real‑estate licence would be cancelled. The Trust argued that the PMC’s permissions in June 2019 violated the Supreme Court’s embargo because the deposit condition was not yet satisfied. The respondents showed that the Rs 40 crores had been deposited on 25 March 2019 and that the Supreme Court later relaxed the embargo on 27 January 2020 for projects other than the specific one covered by the judgment. The High Court held that, given the compliance with the deposit requirement and the Supreme Court’s relaxation, the PMC’s permissions were not illegal and dismissed the writ petition. The petition was therefore disposed without granting any relief to the Trust.
Issues considered
- The validity of the PMC’s permission to the developer in light of the Supreme Court’s embargo on development pending deposit of damages.
- Whether the deposit of Rs 40 crores by the developer satisfied the condition imposed by the Supreme Court, thereby lifting the embargo.
- Whether the Trust can claim that the PMC’s actions breach the order of the Charity Commissioner restraining the developer.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- charitable trust
- forged will
- real estate development
- Supreme Court order
- damages deposit
- embargo
- municipal permission
- property dispute
Judgment
23-WP-12871-2022.odt
rajshree
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.12871 OF 2022
F.N. Social Education Medical Charities Trust ....Petitioner
V/S
Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. ....Respondents
Mr.Malhar Zatakia a/w Mr.Shantanu Shetty i/b Mr.Sangram
Chinnappa for the Petitioner.
Mr.Vishwanath Patil a/w Mr.Akshay Naidu for Respondent No.1,
PMC.
Mr.Ashutosh Kumbhkoni, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.Manish Kelkar
and Ms.Gauri Phadake for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ
DATE : 31st AUGUST 2026
P.C. :
1 The Petition is filed by the Trust and on an earlier occasion
on the preliminary objection being raised about maintainability of
the Petition at the instance of the Petitioner, by order dated
16/04/2026, we dealt with the said objection and turned it down
by recording that the Petitioner Trust being represented through
Mr.Lazarus Chinnappa, definitely has interest in the subject
matter as he was the Trustee on the date of filing of the Petition or
as on date of passing of the order.
Digitally signed
RAJSHREE by RAJSHREE
KISHOR KISHOR MORE
MORE Date: 2026.09.02
11:06:50 +0530
1/6
23-WP-12871-2022.odt
We, however, expected the Pune Municipal Corporation to
file its Affidavit as regards the challenge in the Petition.
2 The Petitioner Trust is aggrieved by the order passed by
Pune Municipal Corporation and this is as regards the property
bearing Survey No.75/2, Wanowrie, Pune, and it is the contention
of the Petitioner that the property was gifted to the Trust by late
Reverend Father Nunes. However, in the year 2010 one
Mrs.Yasmin Sayyed, on the basis of a forged and fabricated Will of
late Reverend Father Nunes, executed a Sale Deed in favour of a
Developer i.e. Respondent No.2. Goel Ganga India Pvt. Ltd.
pertaining to the Trust property. However, she came to be
convicted by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Pune, alongwith
other accused persons for forging and fabricating the Will, on the
basis of which she claimed that she had inherited the Trust
Property. The Joint Charity Commissioner restrained the
Developer as well as Mrs.Yasmin Sayyed from dealing with the
Trust Property in any manner.
3 In the present proceedings before us are the directions
issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court against the Developer i.e.
Respondent No.2, when damages of Rs.100 Crores were imposed
and direction was issued to the Developer to deposit the same
within six months or else indicated that the licence/registration/
permission granted to M/s. Goel Ganga India Pvt. Ltd. to develop
any ‘real estate project’ within the meaning of Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short “the Act of
2016”) shall be cancelled and a further condition being imposed
2/6
23-WP-12871-2022.odt
that the Developer and its Director shall not be granted any
permission to develop any ‘real estate project’ under the Act of
2016.
4 The learned counsel for the Petitioner has invited our
attention to the specific order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court
and various restrictions which came to be imposed by the Hon’ble
Apex Court upon Respondent No.2, upon certain specific findings
being rendered and in specific he would invite our attention to
the Paragraph pertaining to findings and directions in Para 66
and with a specific direction as contained in Para 66.13, which
reads to the following effect :-
“66.13. The project proponent is granted six months' time to deposit
the amount of damages imposed in terms of Direction 66.9 supra in the
Registry of this Court. In case the project proponent does not deposit
the amount within six months then all the assets of the project
proponent i.e. M/s Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. as well as its
Directors shall be attached and the amount of damages shall be
recovered by sale of those assets. It is further directed that in case this
amount is not deposited within the period of six months then the
licence/registration/permission granted to M/s.Goel Ganga Developers
India Pvt. Ltd. to develop any “real estate project” within the meaning
of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 shall be
cancelled and the project proponent i.e. M/s.Goel Ganga Developers
India Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors shall not be granted permission to
develop any “real estate project” under the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 without permission of this Court.”
5 In the wake of the aforesaid, it is the contention of the
Petitioner that the permission granted by the PMC in favour of
Respondent No.2 on 12/06/2019 is clearly in teeth of the said
order and not only that it is also in breach of the said order of
the Charity Commissioner restraining the Developer from dealing
with the Trust property.
3/6
23-WP-12871-2022.odt
It is also the contention of the Petitioner that on 21/06/2019
the PMC issued Commencement Certificate in favour of the
Developer, which was followed by the Developer seeking several
permissions from PMC, which is clearly in breach of the orders
passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court restraining it from taking any
development project.
Our attention is also invited to the order dated 20/12/2019
when the Commencement Certificate No.2195/2019 was issued
in favour of the Developer. It is upon this ground that when the
Apex Court had imposed an embargo upon the Developer in
proceeding with any ‘real estate project’ in absence of the amount
of damages being directed to be deposited with the timeline
specified, it is the contention of the Petitioner that the
permissions granted are liable to be quashed and set aside.
Opposing the said contention, the learned senior counsel
Mr. Kumbhkoni would invite our attention to the further order
passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court being the order dated
27/01/2020 when, upon an Application being taken out by the
Developer seeking clarification of the Judgment dated
10/08/2018 and seeking relaxation in respect of carrying out
the Project other than the subject project in respect of which the
damages were imposed, upon deposit of Rs.40 Crores the Apex
Court considered the Application and clarified that in the wake of
deposit of Rs.40 Crores, the Appellant be granted requisite
permission in respect of other Projects, though in respect of the
Project which was covered by the Judgment of the Apex Court,
no further construction was directed to be carried out till the
Judgment dated 10/08/2018 is complied with in its entirety.
4/6
23-WP-12871-2022.odt
6 In light of the aforesaid order, in our view though the
learned counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently urged before us
that the said order has a prospective effect, we specifically asked
Mr.Kumbhkoni to place before us the dates of deposit of the
amount of Rs.40 Crores and from the receipts it emerges that on
25/03/2019 entire amount of Rs.40 Crores was deposited.
If we accept this as the date of compliance of the deposit of
Rs.40 Crores, on 12/06/2019, the stipulation of depositing Rs.40
Crores was already achieved and though it is only on 27/01/2020,
the Hon’ble Apex Court granted relaxation in respect of the
Projects undertaken by the Developer other than the Projects
covered by the impugned Judgment.
We are also informed that as on date, even the condition of
deposit of balance Rs.60 crores is also attained as on 04/05/2026
amount of Rs.60 Crores is deposited in the Cash and Accounts
Department, Supreme Court of India.
7 We do not want to stretch the matter any further, as we find
that the Hon’ble Apex Court itself relaxed the condition imposed
upon Respondent No.2 Developer, by clarifying that since sum of
Rs.40 Crores is already deposited and it is pertinent to note that
on the date on which the PMC granted permission i.e. on
12/06/2019 to be followed by the subsequent permission, the
amount of Rs.40 Crores was already deposited in the Supreme
Court. The Petitioner, in our view, cannot take the advantage of
the order of the Apex Court imposing a clear embargo as the
Apex Court itself relaxed the said condition on 27/01/2020 and
since we find that before grant of permission in favour of
5/6
23-WP-12871-2022.odt
Respondent No.2, the stipulation of deposit of Rs.40 Crores was
already achieved, we see no reason why the Petitioner should
take advantage of the embargo.
In any case, the learned senior counsel Mr.Kumbhkoni
submit that he is bound by the direction issued by the Division
Bench of this Court that no further construction shall be carried
out unless and until a green signal is given by the Charity
Commissioner.
Accepting and recording the said statement, we dispose of
the Writ Petition.
[ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.] [BHARATI DANGRE, J.]
6/6
Checking your session…