Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 12684 (BOM)

DR. CHITTUSINH MOHANSINH CHAUHAN v. MANILAL BABUBHAI DHODI AND ANR.

IA/3855/2026 · 2026-09-29

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 of 5 7-ia-3855-26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3855 OF 2026 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 641 OF 2020 Dr. Chittusinh Mohansinh Chauhan ..Applicant Versus Manilal Babubhai & Anr. ..Respondents __________ Ms. Rekha Musale i/b. Varsha Palav for Applicant. Mr. Sanjiv Sawant a/w. Abhishek Matkar and Malhar Bageshwar i/b. Abhishek Deshmukh for Respondent No.1. __________ CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ. DATE : 29 SEPTEMBER 2026 PC : 1. This is an application in pending First Appeal No.641 of 2020. This application is filed by the original Appellant in First Appeal No.641 of 2020 who was the original Defendant No.1 in Special Civil Suit No.45 of 2011. The suit was for declaration, possession and permanent injunction in respect of the land at survey No.121/25 admeasuring 26R at village Amli, at Dadra & Nagar Haveli. The suit was decreed vide the order dated 28.01.2020. It was declared that the Sale Deed dated 15.12.1999 Gokhale VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Digitally signed by VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Date: 2026.09.30 10:41:45 +0530 2 of 5 7-ia-3855-26 was bogus, illegal and not binding on the Plaintiffs in the suit. It was held that the Power of Attorney at Exhibit-65 in the suit was not genuine and by way of decree, the Defendant No.1 (Appellant) was directed to deliver the possession of the property. The Defendant No.1 was directed to remove the construction created on the land and to handover the vacant possession of the plot. 2. The Defendant No.1 preferred First Appeal No.641 of 2020. It was admitted vide the order dated 09.03.2021. Vide the order dated 07.03.2022 passed in I.A.No.2306 of 2021 in First Appeal No.641 of 2020, the Division Bench had directed the Appellant not to part with the possession, create third party rights or encumbrances of any nature whatsoever over or in respect of the land or the building until further orders of the Court. There was an industrial factory plant on the premises. The Division Bench specifically ordered that the Court was not permitting letting out, leasing or giving on leave and license of any part of the land or the building without prior leave of the Court obtained after at least three weeks’ prior notice to the Advocate for the Respondent. 3 of 5 7-ia-3855-26 3. Subsequently, it transpired that the Defendant No.1 had already entered into leave and license agreement with the third party. Therefore, I.A.No.30173 of 2022 was preferred in the same First Appeal by the original Plaintiff pointing out this fact. Another Division Bench of this Court considered the situation and observed that the Court was not proceeding under contempt jurisdiction, but directed that the Appellant (original Defendant No.1) shall pay 15% of the amount of license fee starting from the month of October 2023 till the disposal of the Appeal by way of bank transfer to the account of the original plaintiff. 4. The Appeal is still pending and the leave and license agreement was due for renewal in the month of April 2026. 5. Today, the learned counsel for the original Plaintiff (Respondent No.1) and the original Defendant No.1 (Appellant) have tendered the Minutes of Order dated 29.09.2026 signed by the Advocates of their respective parties. The Minutes of order are taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. The original Plaintiff is present in the Court. He is identified by the learned 4 of 5 7-ia-3855-26 counsel. The original Defendant No.1 is not present in the Court. However, learned counsel representing him takes responsibility of these Minutes of order. The Minutes of order dated 29.09.2026 are as follows: “MINUTES OF ORDER Upon the matter being called out, the following terms are agreed and recorded by and between the Applicant and the Respondent No.1: 1. That the Applicant undertakes to pay to the Respondent No.1 herein a sum equivalent to 27% of the monthly License Fee which is payable by the Licensee under Clause 3 of the Leave and License Agreement to be executed for a period of five yeas effective from 1st April, 2026 to 31st March, 2031, draft of which is annexed as Exhibit "D' to the present Interim Application qua the subject premises viz. Industrial Building admeasuring 18,900 square feet. (Super Built Up Area) situated at Survey No. 121/25, 66 KVA Road, Village -Amli of the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. The said amount shall be deposited/transferred by the Applicant into the bank account of the Respondent No. 1 before the 15th day of every month. 2. The Applicant has already deposited a sum of Rs.63,165/- on 13-04-2026 and thereafter deposited a sum of Rs.66,330/- per month from May 2026 till the month of September 2026, totally amounting to Rs.3,94,815/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety-Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifteen only) at the rate of 15% of the monthly license fees, as directed by this Hon'ble Court by the order dated 27th October, 2023 in Interim Application No. 30173 of 2022 in the Bank Account of the Respondent No.1. The remaining / 5 of 5 7-ia-3855-26 differential amount of balance 12% for the months of April, 2026 to September, 2026, the Applicant shall, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of the present order, pay to the Respondent No.1, by depositing it in the bank account of the Respondent No.1. 3. Upon execution of the Leave and License Agreement, the Applicant/Appellant shall continue to pay the Respondent 27% of the monthly compensation received by the Appellant till the expiry of the said agreement or till the decision in the pending First Appeal, whichever is first in time. The Applicant shall provide a true copy of the duly executed Leave and License Agreement to the Advocate for Respondent No.1. 4. The parties herein shall be bound by the final decision of the pending First Appeal.” 6. The Minutes of order are accepted. In the light of these Minutes of order, the present interim application is disposed of. 7. It is made clear that, in case of default in payment, liberty is granted to the original Plaintiff to proceed in the contempt jurisdiction against the Appellant (original Defendant No.1). (RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)