Bombay High Court
ASHISH ANILKUMAR DESAI AND ANRversusMAHARASHTRA INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that MIDC must execute the lease agreement in the name of the LLP, as the Supreme Court order only barred creation of third‑party rights, and the four‑year development period starts from the date of lease execution.
Summary
The petitioners, Ashish Desai and his LLP, sought a writ of mandamus directing MIDC to execute a lease agreement for a plot allotted to Desai’s family and to quash demand notices for alleged arrears. The background involved succession of the lease after the death of Desai’s father and mother, payment of a large sum after a Supreme Court direction, and MIDC’s refusal to execute the lease in the name of the LLP, citing a prior Supreme Court order. The High Court examined whether MIDC’s refusal violated the Supreme Court’s directive and whether the demand notices could be set aside. It held that the Supreme Court order did not prohibit execution of the lease in the LLP’s name, provided no third‑party rights were created, and that the four‑year development period should commence from the date of lease execution. Accordingly, the Court directed MIDC to execute the lease in favor of the LLP within six weeks and allowed the petitioners’ request for an extension of time for development.
Issues considered
- Whether the demand notices and refusal to execute the lease agreement are illegal and liable to be quashed.
- Whether MIDC can lawfully deny execution of the lease in the name of the LLP under the Supreme Court’s 16‑Nov‑2016 order.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to an extension of the four‑year development period.
- Whether the petitioners’ payment of dues without prejudice affects their right to obtain the lease.
- Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing MIDC to execute the lease.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
- Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Disposal of Land Regulations — s. 1975
Subjects
- lease agreement
- industrial development
- writ petition
- Article 226
- MIDC
- Limited Liability Partnership
- extension of time
- demand notice
- execution of lease
Judgment
1/14 904 WP-15469-22.odt
Salgaonkar
MANDIRA MILIND
SALGAONKAR
Digitally signed by MANDIRA
MILIND SALGAONKAR
Date: 2026.10.09 18:15:55 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.15469 OF 2022
Ashish Anilkumar Desai & Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus
Maharashtra Industry Development .. Respondents
Corporation & Ors.
…
Mr.Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sumit Sonare i/b
Mr.Prathamesh Bhargude for the Petitioners.
Ms.Shyamali Gadre with Ms.Mrunal Tavade i/b Liitle & Co. for
the Respondent/MIDC.
Mr.S.H.Kankal, A.G.P. for the State/Respondent.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE : 06th OCTOBER, 2026
...
JUDGMENT (PER BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
1. The Petition filed by Ashish Anilkumar Desai, an
individual and designated partner of M/s Bharati Life Sciences
LLP, seek the following reliefs :-
“[A] That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ
mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ direction and order under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, 1950, quashing and setting aside the letter
dated 7th November 2019 and thereby directing the Respondent
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation to execute an
agreement to lease in respect of the suit plot in favour of the
Petitioner No.2 herein.
[B] That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ
mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ direction and order under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, 1950, quashing and setting aside the letters
dated 28th May 2018 and 26th Feb 2019 vide which the Respondent
2/14 904 WP-15469-22.odt
no. 1 had raised a demand towards alleged outstanding dues of Rs.
7,18,670/- towards service charges, water charges, annual lease
rent and additional premium extension of time limit.
[CC] That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ direction and order under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 directing the Respondents to extend the
time limit granted to the Petitioner for the purpose of commencing
and completion of the constructions work, from the date of entering
into the Agreement of Lease, till such time as the Honourable Court
may deem fit.”
By way of an interim relief, the Petition pray for a
restraint order against the Respondents from acting in
furtherance of the impugned communications.
2. We have heard learned senior counsel Mr.Godbole for the
Petitioners and learned counsel Ms.Shyamali Gadre for
Maharashtra Industry Development Corporation (for short,
“MIDC”), whereas the State is represented by Mr.S.H.Kankal,
the learned Government Advocate.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the
respective parties, we deem it appropriate to issue ‘Rule’,
which is made returnable forthwith.
3. The background facts in which the prayers in the
Petition alongwith the amended reliefs can be appreciated
would reveal that the Petitioner's father, Shri Anilkumar
Desai, was allotted plot bearing number A-84 admeasuring
about 11,325 sq.mtrs. situated at Kurkumbh Industrial area,
in Taluka Daund, District Pune for industrial purpose. The said
plot came to be allotted in the year 1998, by an agreement
executed on 22/05/1998 on payment of premium of
Rs.5,59,000/- by him.
3/14 904 WP-15469-22.odt
On his demise on 02/11/2000, the Regional Officer of
MIDC called upon Shri Ashish Desai, Petitioner No. 1, to
furnish his father’s Death Certificate and Succession
Certificate, so as to accept him on record as a Successor of the
licensee in respect of the said plot.
Accordingly, an application for Succession Certificate
was filed by the mother of Petitioner No.1 by following the due
procedure prescribed, and on 11/02/2005, she came to be
admitted as Licensee on the said plot, which process consumed
considerable length of time. Unfortunately, after the name of
the mother of Petitioner No.1 was accepted as lessee, she
demised on 17/12/2006.
Subsequent to her death, on initiating the necessary
procedure, the said plot was transferred in the name of Ashish
Desai (Petitioner No.1) by the communication dated
18/01/2011.
4. In the wake of the transfer of interest in the plot in
favour of Shri Ashish Desai, an extension was sought for
completion of the work, and when he addressed a
communication, he was informed that the plot had
accumulated arrears of service charges. Upon he raising a
protest to the effect, that he had not received any demand, the
letters were addressed to him informing that since no steps
have been taken for development of the plot, it shall be treated
as an open plot, and the consequences would follow. According
to Petitioner No.1, despite the fact that a formal endorsement
for extension of development was granted by the Respondents,
and in its absence, no steps could have been taken, the MIDC
insisted that the plot is liable to be declared as open.
4/14 904 WP-15469-22.odt
5. On 24/06/2013, the Regional Officer addressed a notice
to Mr.Ashish Desai informing that MIDC would be taking back
the possession of the plot on 02/07/2013 and this constrained
him to approach this court by filing Writ Petition No.11363 of
2013. The petition sought direction to the Respondent to hand
over the possession of the suit plot to the Petitioner and for
quashing and setting aside the notice/order dated 24/06/2013.
However, the Division Bench of this Court, dismissed the
said writ petition, by observing that there was no illegality or
arbitrariness on part of the Respondent to take action against
the said plot, in the wake of the terms and conditions of the
agreement dated 22/05/1998. It was also observed that the
Petitioner was well aware of the terms and conditions of the
agreement and the impugned action was found justiciable as it
was found to be in public interest, as the plot could be allotted
to a deserving entity/person.
6. This constrained the Petitioner to approach the Hon’ble
Apex Court through a Special Leave Petition, which came to be
decided on 16/11/2016.
Upon a statement being made on behalf of the appellant-
Ashish Desai, that he is willing to pay the current rent in
respect of the land in question, it was directed that MIDC shall
raise a demand upon him at current rent i.e. the rate at which
the MIDC is allotting plot to general public. Upon such a
demand being received, the necessary payment shall be made,
and thereafter, the Respondent- MIDC was directed to take
appropriate steps. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the order read to the
following effect :-
5/14 904 WP-15469-22.odt
“6. However, we make it clear that the appellant is directed to abide
by all the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into by
him at the time of allotment of the land in question and further
condition (s), if any, to be imposed by the respondent in respect of
the land allotted.
7. We further make it clear that we are passing this order giving a
chance to the appellant to set up the industry, and no third party
right(s) would be created by the appellant in any manner
whatsoever.”
7. It is a specific case of Mr.Desai that in compliance of the
said order, a demand was raised to the tune of Rs.59,45,625/-
and the same was satisfied and the receipt of the said amount
was duly acknowledged by Respondent No.1 vide its letter
dated 21/03/2017, which clearly stated that the MIDC would be
entering into an agreement of lease with Mr.Ashish Desai in
respect of the suit plot.
It is also worth to note that subsequent to the payment of
the aforesaid amount, the possession was handed over by
passing a receipt on 22/05/2017, but the grievance of
Petitioner No.1 is that no agreement of lease was executed,
and this posed a difficulty for him, as Possession Receipt
clearly stipulated that by itself it did not pass any legal title to
the plot holder, and the legal entitlement would only flow upon
execution of documents to that effect.
Mr.Ashish Desai, on 08/06/2017, made a request to
execute an agreement of lease, but there was no response.
It is on 21/06/2017, a request came to be made by him to
execute the agreement of lease in the name of M/s Bharati Life
Sciences LLP, Petitioner No. 2, and by this communication, it
was intimated to the Regional Officer that the registration
procedure of the Firm-M/s Bharati Life Sciences LLP is already
initiated with the Registrar of Companies and, therefore, the
6/14 904 WP-15469-22.odt
agreement to lease for the plot shall be effected in the name of
M/s Bharati Life Sciences LLP. The application was
accompanied with; (1) certificate of incorporation, (2) LLP
Form No.3 for filing of LLP agreement and (3) Challan.
Thereafter, repeated correspondence was made with
Respondent No.3-Regional Manager and ultimately, on
16/04/2018, the Managing Director of MIDC was requested to
look into it.
However, the Regional Officer, on 28/05/2018, raised a
demand of outstanding sum of Rs.4,51,740/- along with the late
fee charges of Rs.2,66,930/- due and payable towards service
charges, Annual lease rent, additional premium towards
extension of time limit and outstanding dues towards water
charges, thus totaling to a sum of Rs.7,18,670/-.
Petitioner No.1 continued to insist upon execution of the
Lease Deed as per the earlier request forwarded by him and it
is on 29/08/2018, he was informed that the original
documents of the re-allotted plots were sent to the Legal
Department and necessary action will be taken.
Even thereafter, reminder letters were forwarded for
execution of the lease agreement, which received a response to
the effect that the documents were pending with the Legal
Department. However, it is by communication dated
26/02/2019, he was communicated as below:-
"We hereby would like to inform you that, your request dated
21/06/2017 for execution of primary agreement in the name of
M/s.Bharati Lifesciences LLP & your request vide letter dated
01/06/2018 has been voided by the Corporation."
Instead, he was directed to make the necessary payment,
clearing the outstanding dues.
7/14 904 WP-15469-22.odt
8. Since there was considerable delay in executing the
agreement of lease, though the possession of the plot was
handed over to Petitioner No.1 on 22/05/2017, and the
limitation period of four years, as stipulated in clause (3) of
the order of 21/03/2017, was to come to an end in 2021, and
this happened to be in the teeth of the order passed by the
Apex Court, a contempt petition was filed by the Petitioner,
which came to be dismissed on 29/07/2019. Thereafter, MIDC
addressed communications to the Petitioner, asking him to
deposit the outstanding amount of Rs.7,18,670/- and Mr. Desai
adopted a stand that since the MIDC had not yet executed the
agreement of lease, and he was not under an obligation to
make the payment, and further, he made a grievance that his
request for executing the Lease Deed in favour of M/s. Bharati
Life Sciences LLP was rejected for no justiciable reason.
It is in this background, the present petition was
instituted on 25/11/2019, challenging the communication by
which the request of Petitioner No.1 to execute the Lease Deed
of the plot in favor of Petitioner No.2 was rejected. Challenge
was also raised to the demand letters that were raised
reflecting outstanding dues under several heads, in absence of
the agreement of lease being executed.
9. During the pendency of the Petition, with the leave of the
Court, the Petition came to be amended on 03/03/2020, adding
certain grounds with reference to the draft agreement of lease,
which was shared by the petitioner, which prescribed time
limit for commencement and completion of construction work
i.e. six months from the date of agreement of lease and within
8/14 904 WP-15469-22.odt
four years from the date of handing over of possession i.e.
22/05/2017. Since, Petitioner No.1 was not in a position to
comply with the said stipulation, the Petition came to be
amended requesting the Court to extend the time-line for
execution of the agreement and prayer clause [CC] was added
to that effect.
10. After considerable lapse of time, when Petition appeared
before us on 08/06/2026, and a statement is made before us
that the demand raised by the MIDC towards service charges,
water charges etc. was satisfied by Petitioner No.1 and the
Petition was restricted to the relief of execution of the
agreement of lease in favor of Petitioner No.2, a Limited
Liability Partnership, comprising Petitioner No.1 and his wife
and even the amended Petition was pressed into service
praying for extension of time.
MIDC sought time on more than one occasion and when
the Writ Petition appeared before us on 22/06/2026, the
counsel for MIDC insisted that the request of executing a lease
in favor of the LLP i.e. Petitioner No.2 is not permissible in
light of the order dated 16/11/2016 passed by the Apex Court.
It is in these circumstances, we specifically noted thus :-
“ ….We have perused the said order to find that, though the Apex
Court directed the Appellant to abide by all the terms and
conditions of the agreement entered into at the time of allotment of
land in question and further condition(s), if any, to be imposed by
the Respondent in respect of the land allotted, with a view to give a
chance to the Appellant to set up the industry, we do not find any
embargo in not executing an agreement with the LLP, of which one
component is Petitioner No.1, i.e., the Appellant before the Apex
Court.
In para 7 of the order, the only restriction created is that no
third-party right(s) would be created by the Appellant in any
manner whatsoever.
9/14 904 WP-15469-22.odt
2. Today, what is being sought on behalf of the Petitioner through
learned senior counsel Mr. Godbole, is execution of the agreement of
lease in favour of the LLP, of which the Petitioner No.1 himself is
one component and his wife is the second.
Mr. Godbole has also agreed that both the components of the
LLP shall tender separate affidavits to the MIDC clearly setting out
that they shall continue to carry on the business in the name of the
LLP on the land so allotted by MIDC and only in an exceptional case,
either in case of the demise of either of them or any other
circumstance of whatsoever nature, if at all they desire to have a
change in the composition of the LLP, or if any new member is to be
inducted, it shall not be done without prior approval of the MIDC.
3. We expect the said affidavit to be tendered in this Court as well
to be furnished to the Regional Officer, MIDC, Baramati within a
period of one week from today and, upon such affidavits being
tendered, we expect the MIDC to execute the agreement with the
LLP within a period of two weeks thereafter.
4. At this stage, we also record the statement of the learned senior
counsel Mr. Godbole that the amount deposited with MIDC
satisfying the demand raised under various heads and which he
intended to be by way of no prejudice, shall be permitted to be
appropriated by the MIDC upon the agreement being executed.”
11. This order being passed by us, MIDC still did not proceed
ahead and chose to raise a challenge to the said order before
the Apex Court, by filing Special Leave Petition. The Apex
Court, on 04/08/2026, however, passed the following order :-
“1. We do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. The
special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
2. Parties are at liberty to urge all the grounds before the
jurisdictional High Court in the pending writ petition(s).”
12. It is in this background, we have heard learned senior
counsel Mr.Godbole, in light of the specific stand of MIDC,
which was reiterated through the affidavit filed by its Area
Manager on 22/06/2026. In paragraph 4 of the said affidavit,
once again the insistence of the Authority is upon the order of
the Apex Court dated 16/11/2016 and the stand adopted is
that the Apex Court made it clear that the appellant shall
abide by all the terms and conditions of the agreement entered
10/14 904 WP-15469-22.odt
into by him at the time of allotment of land in question, and
shall abide by all the condition(s) imposed by the respondent
in respect of the land allotted.
It is not disputed that the demand raised was satisfied by
Mr. Desai, but it is the stand of the MIDC that when the
Petitioner amended the Petition on 11/12/2019 and he made a
payment without prejudice to the pending challenge, Petitioner
No.1 adopted a stand that the execution of the agreement of
lease should be in the name of Ashish Anilkumar Desai, Chief
Promoter of proposed Bharati Lifesciences Pvt Ltd. and he
never intended to have the lease executed in favor of Petitioner
No.2.
The said communication, being placed on record
alongwith the affidavit, is perused by us and we must record
the contents thereof.
“Respected Sir,
1. As indicated in your order dt. 21.03.2019, I am ready to get the
Agreement executed in my name “SHRI. ASHISH ANILKUMAR
DESAI, CHIEF PROMOTER of Proposed BHARATI LIFESCIENCES
PVT. LTD.”
2. Though the Demand of Rs.7,18,670/- is unjust & is challenged in
High Court without prejudice to such pending challenge and with a
view to ensure that there is no further complication, I am paying
the same by Demand Draft No.033651 dt. 11.12.2019 drawn on
HDFC Bank.
Please execute the requisite Agreement.”
13. MIDC continued to persist with its stand that the said
request cannot be considered, as the Apex Court indicated that
chance be given to the appellant to set up industry and that no
third party right(s) would be created by him in any manner
whatsoever and, therefore, the Legal Department of MIDC
11/14 904 WP-15469-22.odt
opined that the agreement to be executed only in the name of
Ashish Anilkumar Desai and not in the name of Ashish
Anilkumar Desai, Chief Promoter of proposed Bharati
Lifesciences Pvt Ltd.
14. The only justification for the MIDC to refuse the request
of Mr.Desai for executing the agreement in the name of LLP, of
which he alongwith his wife are the partners, is the order of
the Apex Court. We have perused the said order carefully. On
reading of the said order, we have noted that when MIDC took
steps to cancel the allotment in favor of Mr. Desai and the High
Court did not entertain him, before the Apex Court, a
statement was made that he is ready to pay the current rate in
respect of the land in question as a consideration for allotment
of the land, and this request was accepted. Needless to state
that the Apex Court indicated that the appellant shall be
bound by all the terms and conditions of the agreement
entered into by him at the time of allotment of the land in
question as well as he shall feel himself bound by any other
further condition(s), if any imposed by MIDC. This offer of
Petitioner No.1 was accepted by the Apex Court, by clarifying
that it intended to afford a chance to him to set up the industry
and no third party rights shall be created in any manner
whatsoever.
15. The specific case of Petitioner No.1 is that he alongwith
his wife formed Bharati Life Sciences LLP as the partners and
intended to carry out the industrial activity in the allotted
plot. A request was made to execute the agreement in the
12/14 904 WP-15469-22.odt
name of Bharati Life Sciences LLP, of which the Petitioner No.1
is one of the partners.
We do not see any reason for refusing the said request, as
what the Hon’ble Apex Court indicated in its order is that the
appellant shall abide by all the terms and conditions of the
agreement and he shall not create any third party interest.
Now, Petitioner No.1 is desirous of setting up an industry and
avail the benefit of the allotment in his favor, but since now the
business activity to be carried out by him is in the name of LLP
of which he along with his wife are the only partners, we find
no legal impediment in the MIDC executing the lease
agreement in favor of Petitioner No.2-M/s.Bharati Life
Sciences LLP and we direct Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to execute
the agreement with M/s Bharti Life Sciences LLP, of which
Petitioner No.1- Ashish Anilkumar Desai, is also a
member/promoter.
In the wake of the aforesaid, since we find that for one or
the other reason MIDC has been avoiding to take the steps by
taking shelter of the order of the Apex Court, which we find to
be completely unjusticiable, we direct Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to
take immediate steps for execution of the agreement in the
name of Petitioner No.2, which automatically has the presence
of Petitioner No.1 as its partner. We direct the steps to be taken
within period of six weeks from today.
16. Another request which deserves consideration is
extension of time as prayed for by the amended Petition.
Ms.Gadre had vehemently asserted that the time for carrying
out the development work shall commence from the date when
13/14 904 WP-15469-22.odt
the possession is handed over. We repeatedly asked her to
point out the clause to that effect in the Maharashtra
Industrial Development Corporation Disposal of Land
Regulations 1975, but she is unable to point out any such
clause. It is then her contention that in various agreements,
such a stipulation is prescribed and we also asked her to point
out to us such specific agreements, which shall be in
accordance with Form C appended to the said Regulations, but
she was unable to even place on record any such agreement.
However, we could note from the tone and tenor of the
Regulation and the format i.e. Form C, that a time-line is
prescribed for carrying out construction/development activity,
but it is not that MIDC is not within its power to grant
extension, and as Ms.Gadre has indicated that, if the extension
is granted, it shall be subject to payment of the necessary
charges/fees at the end of the Corporation. Therefore, we can
understand that the time-line of four years from the date of
possession is not a hard and fast rule, as on an application
made and on justiciable explanation being offered that the
development work could not be completed within the
stipulated time-line, an extension is permissible.
In the peculiar case, where we find that after the order of
the Apex Court, MIDC for one or the other reason has been
avoiding to execute the agreement with the Petitioner and
Petitioner No.1 made a request to execute the agreement in
favor of an LLP of which he is a part, the request has been
rejected, and when we directed it to do so, the MIDC then
deemed it appropriate to approach the Apex Court and this
consumed time.
14/14 904 WP-15469-22.odt
We, therefore, do not find any fault with the Petitioners
and in such circumstances, since we have already issued a
direction that an agreement shall be executed in the name of
Petitioner No.2, with the presence of Petitioner No.1, we direct
that the period of four years shall commence from the date of
execution of the agreement. However, Mr. Godbole fairly
submitted that as far as the period of lease of 95 years is
concerned, MIDC is at liberty to count the said period from the
date of handing over of possession i.e. from 2017.
17. With the aforesaid clarification that the agreement to be
executed in the name of Petitioner No.2, with the presence of
Petitioner No.1, we direct that the period of four years shall
commence from the date of the agreement or any other date
with the prospective effect as indicated in the agreement and
needless to state that it is for the MIDC to consider any request
coming from its lessee seeking extension of time, which shall
deserve consideration on its own merits.
The Petition is made absolute in the aforestated terms.
(ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.