Bombay High Court

RAKESH KAVISHANLAL AGRAWALversusMUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORTION AND ORS

Decided: 24 March 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: N JAMADAR

Holding

Execution proceedings shall not be deferred and must be decided in accordance with law irrespective of pending Notices of Motion.

Summary

The petitioner challenged an order of the City Civil Court that directed the pending Notices of Motion (Nos. 3862/2025, 343/2026, 344/2026 and 345/2026) be kept on record and that the main execution petition be postponed until those motions are decided. The Notices of Motion were filed by former partners of Respondent No.3 seeking to set aside a consent decree dated 27 November 2012, which had been partially modified in 2021 and subsequently set aside by this Court in several writ petitions in 2021. The key question was whether the execution proceedings could be deferred pending the resolution of those Notices of Motion. The Court held that execution proceedings must proceed according to law and cannot be stayed merely because related motions are pending. Consequently, the direction to defer the execution was clarified as untenable and the petition was disposed.

Issues considered

Whether execution proceedings may be deferred until pending Notices of Motion are decided
Whether the direction to keep the Notices of Motion on record and postpone the main execution petition is legally valid

Subjects

execution proceedings
stay of execution
consent decree
notice of motion
civil procedure
high court
writ petition

Judgment

                                                                      35-WP3299-2026.DOC

                                                                                 Santosh

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 3299 OF 2026

                      Rakesh Kavishanlal Agrawal                           ...Petitioner
                                      Versus
                      Mumbai Municipal Corporation And Ors              …Respondents

                      Mr. Rohan Savant, a/w Mr. Sandeep Nirban and Ms. Pallak
SANTOSH
                            Ranawat, i/b Darpan Jain, for the Petitioner.
SUBHASH               Mr. D. R. Kawale, for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 BMC.
KULKARNI
                      Miss. Gaurangi Patil, a/w Gaurav C. and V. Jain, for
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH
SUBHASH                     Respondent No.4.
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.03.30
10:40:33 +0530
                      Mr. Shriram Red<. for Respondent Nos.5 & 6 in WP/3296/26 &
                            for Respondent No.5.

                                                       CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                       DATED: 24th MARCH, 2026

                      Oral Order:-

                      1.   Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

                      2.   The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 13 th

                      February, 2026 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court,

                      thereby directing that Notice of Motion No.3862/2025 be kept

                      with NM/343/2026, NM/344/2026 and NM/345/2026, and

                      draft Notices of Motion taken out by the plaintiff questioning the

                      maintainability of the abovenumbered Notices of Motion. The

                      learned Judge further directed the parties to note that after

                      hearing of NM/343/2026, NM/344/2026 and NM/345/2026

                      and draft Notices of Motions, NM/3862/2025 will be decided.
                                                     1/3
                                                 35-WP3299-2026.DOC

3.   The   Notices      of   Motion    Nos.3862/2025,   343/2026,

344/2026 and 345/2026 are taken out by the erstwhile

partners of Respondent No.3 seeking setting aside of the

Consent Decree passed in Suit No.1505/2009, dated 27 th

November, 2012. It seems that Rajendra Jain had preferred

NM/336/2021 seeking to set aside the said consent decree

dated 27th November, 2012 in Suit/1505/2009. The said Notice

of Motion was partly allowed and the consent decree was

modiCed by a judgment and order dated 16th March, 2021. The

said order was challenged in WP/2915/2021 and the connected

petitions. By a judgment and order dated 17th December, 2021,

in WP/2915/2021, WP/2917/2021, WP(ST)/15626/2021 and

WP(ST)/15627/2021 passed by this Court, the modiCcation in

the said Consent Decree made by the learned Judge, City Civil

Court, was set aside.

4.   It appears that after the rejection of the said Notice of

Motion and the order passed by this Court in WP/2915/2021,

WP/2917/2021, WP(ST)/15626/ 2021 and WP(ST)/15627/2021,

the Notices of Motion have been Cled by the erstwhile partners

of respondent No.3 seeking setting aside of the said Consent

Terms on various grounds.




                                 2/3
                                                35-WP3299-2026.DOC

5.   Undoubtedly, the said Notices of Motion would be required

to be decided by the learned Judge, City Civil Court on their

own merits and in accordance with law. However, the question

that wrenches to the fore is, shall the execution be deferred till

those Notices of Motion are decided.

6.   The impugned direction of the learned Judge, City Civil

Court, has an implication that the said Notices of Motion would

be decided Crst and, thereafter, the main execution petition

would be taken up.

7.   Thus, it is clariCed that the execution proceedings shall be

decided in accordance with law, and the hearing and order in

the execution proceedings shall not be deferred till the decision

of the abovernumbered Notices of Motion.

8.   Subject to aforesaid clariCcation, the petition stands

disposed.

                                           [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




                               3/3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…