[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Mavani Infrastructures Llp Through Its ... vs M/S Kalpavruksha Developers on 11 March, 2026
Author: Abhay Ahuja
Bench: Abhay Ahuja
45-IA-3146-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3146 OF 2025
IN
COMMERCIAL SUMMARY SUIT NO. 31 OF 2022
MAVANI INFRASTRUCTURES LLP )...APPLICANT
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
MAVANI INFRASTRUCTURES LLP )...PLAINTIFF
V/s.
M/S. KAPLAVRUKSHA DEVELOPERS AND ANR. )...DEFENDANTS
Mr.Anish Karande a/w. Mr.Kapil N. Gor, Mr.Tatsat Gor, Mr.Shyam Singh,
Mr.Satchit Gor, Mr.Aaryan Gor i/by Mr.Kapil N. Gor, Advocate for the
Applicant / Plaintiff.
None for the Respondents / Defendants.
CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE : 11th MARCH 2026
P.C. :
1. Pursuant to order dated 19th January 2026, today when the
matter is called out, Mr.Anish Karande, learned Counsel, appears for
the Applicant / Plaintiff and submits that the Plaintiff had on the said
date referred to paragraph 5 of the Affidavit of the Defendants in
Notice of Motion (Lodging) No.768 of 2018 in Commercial Suit
ARTI
VILAS (Lodging) No.423 of 2018 to demonstrate that there is an admission of
KHATATE
45-IA-3146-2025.doc
liability of Rs.23,10,90,085/- in favour of the Plaintiff. That, the very
same figure has been referred to in the communication dated 20 th
February 2019 from the Plaintiff to the Defendant no.1, as can be seen
from page 109 of the plaint.
2. Mr.Karande has submitted that, however, in view of the claims
relating to interest, the total outstanding is Rs.36,29,69,223/-.
Mr.Karande submits that, that is the total amount raised by the Plaintiff
under the invoice at Exhibit A. Mr.Karande submits that the total of
the grand totals in the two tables at Exhibit A comes to
Rs.36,29,69,223/- and to that rate escalation amount of
Rs.2,79,39,242/- has been added, although there is no basis for the
said rate escalation in the plaint nor in the table at page 22.
Mr.Karande, however, submits that in the communication dated 15 th
September 2006 from the Defendant no.1 to Mavani Infrastructure in
serial no.10 of the terms and conditions, it has been stated that if there
is any delay in completion of work due to MCGM approval, then the
rate will be revised for the entire contract work by mutual
understanding. Mr.Karande submits that, therefore, the total amount
as per the Particulars of Claim is Rs.39,09,08,465/- from which an
amount of Rs.15,82,58,142/- which has been received from the
45-IA-3146-2025.doc
Defendant no.1 has been deducted. Accordingly, the principal amount
due to the Plaintiff is Rs.23,19,87,323/- upon which an interest at the
rate of 12 percent per annum calculated separately of
Rs.13,91,92,394/- adds up to a total outstanding amount of
Rs.37,11,79,717/- and decree for the said amount has been prayed for
in addition to interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the
date of the filing of the Suit till payment and / or realization.
3. Upon a query from this Court as to the basis for the 12 percent
interest, Mr.Karande is unable to point out the same.
4. Since the amount admitted is Rs.23,10,90,085/- and the
principal amount mentioned in the Particulars of Claim is
Rs.23,19,87,323/- this Court enquired from Mr.Karande for the Plaintiff
as to the explanation with respect to the differential amount and
Mr.Karande had nothing much to explain except to state that the
amount of Rs.23,19,87,323/- is the amount claimed by the Plaintiff and
the amount of Rs.23,10,90,085/- is the amount admitted by the
Defendant no.1.
5. This Court has also perused serial no.10 of the terms and
conditions attached to the communication dated 15 th September 2006
45-IA-3146-2025.doc
from the Defendant no.1 to Mavani Infrastructure and the same clearly
mentions that the rate is final and shall not be subject to any escalation
till the completion of the said building. That, if there is delay in
completion of the work due to MCGM approval, then the rate will be
revised for the entire contract work by mutual understanding. This
Court has therefore further enquired from the learned Counsel
appearing for the Plaintiff as to whether any mutual understanding was
entered into with respect to the rate escalation and the learned Counsel
has been unable to demonstrate the same.
6. Considering that there is a discrepancy in the principal amount
due and the admitted amount and also that there is no basis for the
rate escalation of Rs.2,79,39,242/- as well as the 12 percent interest
amounting to Rs.13,91,92,394/- does not have any basis, this Court
deems it appropriate to grant some time to the learned Counsel
appearing for the Plaintiff to take necessary instructions from his client.
7. List on 29th April 2026.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)
