[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Infinity Cars Pvt Ltd vs Sabari Jani Associates on 20 February, 2026
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
906.S.235.2025.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT NO. 235 OF 2025
Infinity Cars Pvt. Ltd. .. Plaintiff
Versus
M/s. Sabari Jani Associates and Ors. .. Defendants
....................
Mr. Kiran Padalkar, Advocate i/by Padalkar and Partners for
Plaintiff.
Mr. Niranjan Vaghela, Advocate for Defendant No.1.
....................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 20, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Padalkar, learned Advocate for Plaintiff and Mr.
Vaghela, learned Advocate for Defendant No.1.
2. On 11.02.2026, this Court passed the following order:-
"1. Mentioned out of turn.
2. Heard Mr. Padalkar, learned Advocate for Plaintiff; Mr.
Vaghela, learned Advocate for Defendant No.1 and Mr.
Lanjekar, learned Advocate for Defendant Nos.2 to 4.
3. At the outset, Plaintiff contends that following three
words be added in sentence No.2 of paragraph No.2 beginning
with though and shall read as:-
"The Plaintiff contends that though Plaintiff has shifted its
operation from suit premises elsewhere the handing over of the
suit premises has not been effected due to security deposit not
having been returned."
4. Parties have reconciled and settled their disputes.
5. On 17.12.2025, following order was passed:-
"1. Heard Mr. Naik, learned Senior Advocate for
Applicant / Plaintiff and Mr. Kamat, learned Senior
1 of 12
906.S.235.2025.doc
Advocate for Defendant No.1.
2. The lis between the parties pertains to return
of security deposit of suit premises. Though Plaintiff
has shifted its operation from suit premises
elsewhere the handing over of the suit premises has
not been effected due to security deposit not having
been returned. I am of the opinion that both parties
should without prejudice to their rights and
contentions consider resolving the dispute regarding
return of security deposit and handing over of
possession rather than litigate in Court. If required
this Court can appoint a mediator to resolve the
issue if desired by parties. This court expresses faith
in both the learned Senior Advocates appearing for
the respective parties to consider the above
suggestion of the court and take steps accordingly.
3. Stand over to 12th January 2026."
6. Today parties have filed Consent Terms. The dispute is
essentially between Plaintiff and Defendant No.1, inter alia,
with respect to lis which parties have now resolved. Defendant
Nos.2 to 4 are unable to sign Consent Terms though Advocate
Mr. Lanjekar has signed on their instructions. They will present
themselves and sign Consent Terms on 20.02.2026 as informed
to Court.
7. In that view of the matter, Consent Terms dated
11.02.2026 are taken on record and marked 'X' for
identification and accepted by the Court. The time frame in the
Consent Terms namely rights and obligations of the parties
shall stand forthwith agreed as per terms agreed in the Consent
Terms regarding any payments to be made and abide by the
same. They are taken as undertaking given to this Court.
8. Needless to state that once Defendant Nos.2 to 4 append
their signature on 20.02.2026, the said Consent Terms shall be
made part of this order and accordingly uploaded.
9. In the meanwhile, the aforesaid order shall prevail.
10. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 shall present themselves on
20.02.2026 at 11:00 a.m. for signing the Consent Terms.
11. Interim Application (Lodging) No.2816 of 2026 is filed
seeking condonation of delay in filing written statement. For
the reasons mentioned in the Interim Application, Interim
Application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which
reads thus:-
"a) That the delay of 72 days from the 30 day
period from service of the Writ of Summons and/or
the delay of 12 days from the 90 days period from
service of the Writ of Summons in the filing of the
Written Statement of the Applicants in the above
2 of 12
906.S.235.2025.doc
Suit No. 235 of 2025 be condoned and the Written
Statement of the Applicants be taken on record in
the above Suit No. 235 of 2025."
12. Written statement is accepted. Delay of 72 days is
condoned. Department shall accept the same.
13. Stand over to 20th February 2026. To be placed under the
caption 'First on Board'.
14. Interim Application (Lodging) No.2816 of 2026 is
disposed."
3. As directed in paragraph No.8 of the said order, Defendant
Nos.2 to 4 are present today in Court and have appended their
signatures on the Consent Terms. Consent Terms were taken on record
and marked 'X' on the 11.02.2026.
4. Consent Terms are signed by Director / Authorised Signatory
of Plaintiff - for Infinity Cars Pvt. Ltd.; Partner, for Padalkar and
Partners Advocate for Plaintiff; Member / Authorised Signatory of
Defendant No.1; Advocate for Defendant No.1; Defendant No.2,
Director of Defendant No.3; Partner of Defendant No.4 and their
respective Advocates. They are present in Court today and are
identified by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective
parties. They confirm execution of the Consent Terms.
5. Consent Terms are running into 8 pages. For the sake of
reference and convenience, Consent Terms is scanned and reproduced
below:-
3 of 12
906.S.235.2025.doc
4 of 12
906.S.235.2025.doc
5 of 12
906.S.235.2025.doc
6 of 12
906.S.235.2025.doc
7 of 12
906.S.235.2025.doc
8 of 12
906.S.235.2025.doc
9 of 12
906.S.235.2025.doc
10 of 12
906.S.235.2025.doc
11 of 12
906.S.235.2025.doc
6. The obligations and undertakings given by the parties in the
Consent Terms are recorded and accepted as undertakings given to this
Court.
7. Parties are directed to abide by the same.
8. Order in terms of the Consent Terms.
9. In view of the rights and obligations in the Consent Terms,
list the Suit on Board on 17th June, 2026 for compliance and further
orders.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.02.20
18:25:33 +0530
12 of 12
