Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

SHRI BHOLADASJI MANDIR ETC.versusVISHWANATH SHANKAR VADNEKAR

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the consent terms signed by the parties.

Summary

The petitioners and respondents filed writ petitions before the Bombay High Court. Both parties subsequently executed consent terms on 1 August 2026, which were signed by their authorized representatives, trustees, and advocates, and were recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding in Marathi. The court accepted the consent terms, including annexed documents such as a letter from the Nashik Municipal Corporation, as binding undertakings. It held that the assurances contained therein were sufficient to dispose of the writ petitions. Consequently, the court ordered the petitions to be dismissed in accordance with the consent terms and declared any pending interim applications infructuous.

Issues considered

  • Whether the writ petitions can be disposed of on the basis of consent terms signed by the parties and their representatives
  • Whether the annexed Memorandum of Understanding and related documents form part of the consent terms
  • Whether pending interim applications become infructuous upon settlement

Subjects

  • consent order
  • settlement
  • writ petition
  • civil appellate jurisdiction
  • video conferencing
  • memorandum of understanding
  • interim application
  • disposal

Judgment

                                                                    501-wp-4886-2000-wp.doc




            varsha
                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 4886 OF 2000
                                                     WITH
                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 4894 OF 2000
                                                     WITH
                                INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 16061 OF 2024


                     Shri Bholadasji Mandir Etc                        … Petitioner
                                vs.
                     Vishwanath Shankar Vadnekar and Ors               … Respondents

                     Mr. Hrishikesh S. Shinde for the Petitioner
                     Mr. Kishor Shrivaishnav, Petitioner present.
        Digitally
        signed by
                     Mr. Sham Thakur for Respondent.
        VARSHA
VARSHA VIJAY
VIJAY   RAJGURU
RAJGURU Date:
                     Mr. Prakash V. Vadnerkar and Mr. Shashikant V. Vadnerkar for
        2026.08.19
        11:15:21
        +0530
                     Respondent Nos. 1B and 1C(on VC).
                     Mr. Naresh Prakash Vadnerkar, Respondent No. 1B and 1C
                     present.


                                                    CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
                                                     DATED : 18th AUGUST 2026


                     ORDER:

                     1.    Not on board. Taken on the production board in view of the

                     production praecipe submitted on behalf of the respondent.

                     2.    Learned counsels for the parties tendered two separate

                                                  Page no. 1 of 3
                                                 501-wp-4886-2000-wp.doc



consent terms dated 1st August 2026, in each of the petitions. The

consent terms are signed by the authorised representative who is

the Trustee of the petitioner and the respondents. Learned counsels

for the parties submit that the respondents have joined through

Video Conferencing. The consent terms is also signed by the Power

of Attorney holder of the respondents. Learned counsel for the

respondents identifies the respondents who have joined through the

Video Conferencing and the Power of Attorney holder who is

present in the court.

3.       The photocopy of the terms agreed between the parties

recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding, in Marathi is annexed

to both the consent terms. The letter issued by the Nashik Municipal

Corporation recording rehabilitation of the respondents is also

annexed to the consent terms. The consent terms are also signed

by the respective advocates. Learned counsel for the petitioner

identifies the authorised representative and the sole trustee of the

petitioner who has signed the consent terms and is present in the

court.

4.       The consent terms dated 1st August 2026 are taken on record

in each of the petitions and marked ‘X’ and ‘X-1’ respectively with

today’s date for identification.

                               Page no. 2 of 3
                                              501-wp-4886-2000-wp.doc



5.    The assurances recorded in the consent terms are accepted

as undertakings to this court. The terms agreed as recorded in the

copy of the Memorandum of Undertaking in Marathi which is

annexed to the consent terms shall also be treated as a part of the

consent terms.

6.    The writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the consent

terms.

7.    Interim Applications pending, if any, are disposed of as

infructuous.



                                                 (GAURI GODSE, J.)




                            Page no. 3 of 3


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.