[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Mona Forgings Pvt Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra Th. The Office Of ... on 22 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 17979 OF 2026
M/s. Mona Forgings Private Limited .. Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
Through The Office of the Government Pleader
And Others .. Respondents
Mr. Abhijeet Desai a/w Mr. Irfan Unwala & Shaheen Kapadia, Advocates for the
Petitioner.
Mrs. Usha Rahi, A.G.P. for Respondent No. 1-State.
Mr. Girish Godbole, Sr. Counsel a/w Mr. Meet Vora & Ms. Komal Jadhav i/b
Navdeep Vora & Associates, Advocates for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
Mrs. Pooja Khandeparkar a/w Mr. Yash Chheda, Mr. Nivit Srivastava, Ms. Isha
Vyas & Mr. Bhavya R. Shah i/b Maniar Srivastava Associates, Advocates for
Respondent No. 4.
Mr. Vikram Garewal a/w B. Mohammedi & Mr. Prashant Choudhary i/b Bellator
Legal Services LLP, Advocate for the Intervenor in IA/18101/2026.
CORAM : GAUTAM A. ANKHAD &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
(VACATION COURT)
DATE : 22nd MAY 2026.
P.C. :
1. Mr. Abhijeet Desai, learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave to
delete prayer clauses (h) to (p) from the Petition. Leave, as prayed for, is
14-WP(L)-17979-2026.doc Gitalaxmi
granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Re-verification is dispensed
with.
2. The Petitioner, M/s. Mona Forgings Pvt. Ltd., has filed the present
Petition seeking urgent ad-interim reliefs in relation to the notice dated 19 th
May 2026 issued by Respondent no.2 - MIDC to Respondent no.4, M/s. AB
Emerald LLP. Mr. Desai submits that although the notice is not addressed to
the Petitioner, it is affected by the same. He submits that the Petitioner has
been in continuous possession of the subject premises and has been carrying
on business activities therefrom since the year 1989. In support of the claim
of possession, reliance is placed upon certain photographs and electricity
bills annexed to the Petition. It is, however, an admitted position that there is
no registered agreement executed in favour of the Petitioner in respect of the
subject premises. It is also not disputed that no prior written permission of
Respondent No.2 - MIDC was obtained for any alleged transfer, assignment
or creation of rights in favour of the Petitioner.
3. Mr. Desai submits that Respondent No.2 - MIDC had originally
executed a lease in favour of M/s. Benelon Industries in the year 1979 and
that M/s. Benelon Industries, in turn, handed over possession of the premises
14-WP(L)-17979-2026.doc Gitalaxmi
to the Petitioner on 7th April 1989. There were inter se disputes between
Benelon Industries and the Petitioner, which resulted in the Petitioner filing
a R.A.D. Suit No. 562 of 1990. On 10 th February 1990, injunction orders
were granted to the Petitioner in the said suit. Under a Conducting
Agreement, M/s. Fortpoint Automotive Cars Private Limited has been put in
possession of the premises. Mr. Desai submits that the impugned notice
dated 19th May 2026 is issued at the behest of the Respondent no.4 developer
to defeat the Petitioner's rights in the property. He therefore prays that an
order of status quo ought to be passed.
4. Mr. Vikram Garrewal, learned counsel appearing for a proposed
Intervenor M/s. Fortpoint Automotive Cars Private Limited supports the
Petitioner and submits that his client is in possession of the property.
5. Mr. Girish Godbole, learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent
no.2, submits that the alleged illegal and unauthorized construction has
already been demolished and therefore, no immediate urgency survives in
the matter.
6. Mrs. Pooja Khandeparkar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent
no.4, submits that the impugned notice issued under Sections 52 and 53(1)
14-WP(L)-17979-2026.doc Gitalaxmi
of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 has been
addressed to Respondent no.4 alone and that Respondent no.4 has no
objection to the said notice. She tenders a copy of order dated 23 rd
November 2019 passed by the Small Causes Court, Bandra and submits that
the said suit has been dismissed for default. Thus neither the Petitioner nor
the proposed Intervenor have any subsisting right in respect of the subject
premises.
7. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the record. Prima facie, we find that the impugned notice has not
been issued to the Petitioner but to Respondent no.4, who has accepted the
same and does not seek to challenge it. It is also not in dispute that
Respondent No.2 has already carried out demolition of the alleged
unauthorized construction. In these circumstances, the immediate cause for
seeking urgent protective orders does not survive.
8. The claim of the Petitioner is founded essentially on alleged
possession and occupation of the premises since 1989. However, the
Petitioner admittedly does not possess any registered document evidencing
transfer or creation of rights in its favour, nor any approval or permission
14-WP(L)-17979-2026.doc Gitalaxmi
from Respondent No.2. The rival claims now sought to be canvassed by the
Petitioner and the proposed Intervenor pertain to disputed questions
concerning possession, occupation and rights in property. Such issues are
matters of adjudication before a civil court and cannot be determined by the
writ court. Hence, we are not inclined to grant the ad-interim relief of status
quo or any other protective order as prayed for. It is clarified that if the
Petitioner is desirous of pursuing any independent civil remedy in
accordance with law, it shall be at liberty to do so.
9. The Respondents shall file their Affidavit-in-Reply within a period of
four weeks. List the matter on 1st July 2026.
[ SANDESH D. PATIL, J. ] [ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ]
GITALAXMI KRISHNA
KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR
KOTAWADEKAR Date:
2026.05.22
22:23:07 +0530
14-WP(L)-17979-2026.doc Gitalaxmi
