Bombay High Court

AISHWARYAM COURTYARD PHASE I CO OP. HSG. SOC. LTD THRU S P DESHMUKHversusM/S. SAI ESSEN PROPERTIES AND ORS

Decided: 17 June 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: SANDEEP V MARNE

Holding

The Court set aside the order dated 28 November 2025, restored the original application for fresh adjudication, and granted the petitioner liberty to amend the application.

Summary

The Bombay High Court examined a writ petition filed by Aishwaryam Courtyard Phase-1 Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. challenging a Competent Authority order dated 28 November 2025. The Society alleged an inordinate delay of over a year between the closure of proceedings on 24 October 2024 and the issuance of the order, and complained that the developer introduced additional documents after closure, resulting in a reduced conveyance area. The developer’s counsel, while denying the allegation of late document production, agreed that the matter should be remanded due to the delay. The Court, with the parties’ consent, set aside the impugned order, restored the original application for fresh adjudication, and permitted the Society to file an amendment seeking a larger area. The parties were directed to appear before the Competent Authority on 1 July 2026 for further hearing.

Issues considered

Whether the delay of more than a year in passing the order after closure of proceedings warrants setting aside the order.
Whether the introduction of additional documents after closure affects the entitlement of the petitioner and justifies remand.
Whether the petitioner may be allowed to amend its application to claim additional area.

Subjects

delay in justice
remand
amendment of application
competent authority
housing society
conveyance
additional documents

Judgment

k                               1/3                       35 wp 5121.26 as.doc




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    WRIT PETITION NO.5121 OF 2026

Aishwaryam Courtyard Phase-1
Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.                            ....Petitioner
      V/S
M/s. Sai Essen Properties & Ors.                             ....Respondents
                                 _________

Mr. Prashant Darandale for the Petitioner-Society.
Mr. Prabhakar M. Jadhav for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Shekhar V. Mane for Respondent Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6.
Mr. A.A. Alaspurkar, AGP for Respondent No.7 and 8/State.
                              __________

                          CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
                          DATE : 17 JUNE 2026.
P.C.:

1.        One of the grounds on which the impugned order of the
Competent Authority dated 28 November 2025 is challenged by the
Petitioner-Society is inordinate delay in passing of order after closing
the proceedings. It is contended that the arguments were heard on 24
October 2024 and the proceedings were closed for orders. However, the
0nal order is passed almost a year later on 28 November 2025.


2.       Another   grievance   of     the   Petitioner-Society      is    that   the
Respondent-Developer has produced certain additional documents
before the Competent Authority, particularly the sanctioned plan after
the proceedings were closed for orders on 24 October 2024. The
Petitioner-Society contends that production of such additional material

katkam                                  Page No. 1 of 3
k                                2/3                     35 wp 5121.26 as.doc




has resulted in conveyance of lesser area than Petitioner-Society’s
entitlement.


3.       Mr. Jadhav, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1-
Developer though does not admit the allegations of production of
additional documents, fairly concedes to the position that the
proceedings can be remanded for being adjudicated afresh, particularly
on account of delay in passing the order.


4.       Mr. Darandale, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner-
Society submits that the Petitioner is desirous of amending Application
No.210 of 2023 so as to claim additional area than the one originally
claimed. Since the proceedings are being remanded for fresh
adjudication, I do not see any dif0culty why the Petitioner-Society
cannot be permitted to 0le an application for amendment.


5.       Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, following order is
passed:

         i)    Order of the Competent Authority dated 28 November 2025
         passed in Application No.210 of 2023 is set aside. Application
         No.210 of 2023 is restored on the 0le of the Competent Authority
         to be decided afresh after grant of the opportunity of hearing to
         the rival parties.


         ii)   Petitioner-Society would be at liberty to 0le Application for
         amendment of Application No.210 of 2023.


katkam                                 Page No. 2 of 3
                         k                                3/3                      35 wp 5121.26 as.doc




                                  iii)   Parties shall appear before the Competent Authority on 1
                                  July 2026 and seeks further directions for 0xation of dates of
                                  hearing.



                         6.       All rights and contentions of parties are expressly kept open to be
                         agitated before the Competent Authority.


                         7.       With the above directions, the Writ Petition is partly allowed and
                         disposed of.



                                                                (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)




                          katkam
Signed by: Sudarshan R. Katkam                                   Page No. 3 of 3
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 18/06/2026 17:33:07

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…