907-conpw.40.2015.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.40 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2849 OF 2012 Rajendra Hundraj Gaglani ...Petitioner Versus The Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Kaushal Tamhane with Mr. Atharav Hadawale, Mr. Prithviraj Kharat and Mr. Prasad Nagargoje for the Petitioner. Mr. Shailendra P. Sardar i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi, for the M.C.G.M. Mr. Ashish Dubey for the Respondent No.4. CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE & ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : 25th AUGUST 2026 P.C. : 1. The Contempt Petition deserves a disposal, as on 11th August 2026, we recorded a statement on behalf of the counsel for the respondent No.4, to pay an amount of Rs.14,64,120/- towards rental N. S. Chitnis 1/4 NISHA SANDEEP CHITNIS Digitally signed by NISHA SANDEEP CHITNIS Date: 2026.08.29 11:55:19 +0530 907-conpw.40.2015.doc compensation for the period from 2013 to January 2020. We also recorded the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the amount ought to be computed upto 15th December 2024 i.e. the date on which the flat was vacated and possession of the flat was handed over to the petitioner. 2. During the course of the hearing before us, the counsel for the respondent No.4 has produced a communication dated 25th September 2021, addressed to the Secretary of Harsha Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. in regards to the subject of handing over the possession of the member flats of the Society. This said communication includes the name of the petitioner - Rajendra H. Gaglani, at Serial No.7, in respect of Flat No.504, and the handing of the possession of the flat being indicated as 28th October 2021. We have noted that all the other owners of the flat whose names find mention in the said communication, have accepted the possession in the year 2021 itself. We do not want to get into the dispute as to whether the notice was served upon the petitioner but N. S. Chitnis 2/4 907-conpw.40.2015.doc admittedly if other members are offered the flats, we believe that the same was also offered to the petitioner. Why the petitioner did not accept the same is obvious, that he had certain disputes with the Developer and the Society, for which he had already instituted proceedings. 3. Therefore, we do not intend to get into the said dispute and we direct the counsel for the respondent No.4 to compute the rental compensation upto the month of September 2021 and top up the amount of Rs.14,64,120/- which is offered as rental compensation upto January 2020. 4. The counsel for the respondent No.4 makes a statement that he shall accordingly enhance the amount and make the payment within a period of two weeks from today. The counsel for the respondent No.4 further makes a statement on behalf of respondent No.4 that the said amount shall be disbursed by way of a Demand Draft. N. S. Chitnis 3/4 907-conpw.40.2015.doc 5. As far as the execution of Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (PAAA) is concerned, he is also under instructions to make a statement that the same shall be executed within a period of two weeks from today. Accepting the aforesaid statement, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the Contempt Petition, though we make it clear that we have only examined the aspect of non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court, as regards payment of the rental compensation and/or if there are other disputes which the petitioner wants to raise, we have not pronounced upon the same and all rights and contentions of the parties in that regard are kept open. However, since we find that the order passed by this Court has been substantially complied with, we drop the Contempt proceedings. ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J. N. S. Chitnis 4/4