Bombay High Court
Mrs. Annie Joseph Miranda Thru Poa Mr. ... vs Asst. Commissioner Of Vasai Virar City ... on 18 September, 2025
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Digitally
signed by
GAURI AMIT
GAURI GAEKWAD
AMIT Date:
GAEKWAD 2025.09.18 918.WP-8996-2023.odt
19:23:05
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8996 OF 2023
Annie Joseph Miranda through legal heirs
Archie Julius Silveira & Avian Julius Silveria ....Petitioners
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Vasai
Virar City Municipal Corporation & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.23813 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.24549 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.8996 OF 2023
----
Ms. Sneha Agrawal a/w. Ms. Shweta R. Rathod i/b. Elixir Legal
Services for the Petitioners.
Ms. Swati Sagvekar for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. A.S. Peerzada,
Mr. Rakesh Sawant, Advocate Shamiyana H. and Mr. Rahul Patil
i/b. Arhat Legal for Respondent No.3.
Mr. Ajinkya Desai a/w. Mr. Saurav Katkar i/b. Mr. Amar Parsekar
for Respondent No.4.
----
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
DATE : 18th SEPTEMBER, 2025
P.C. :-
1. This matter is at Serial No.918 on today's
supplementary board. When the matter was called out, we were informed that the learned Advocate Ms. Nidhi Dotiya is not Gauri Gaekwad 1 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2025 22:03:14 :::
918.WP-8996-2023.odt available on the ground that she has a medical urgency. When we called upon Ms. Shweta Rathod to address the Court, we were informed that she is present in the Court. These two Advocates had addressed this Court (Coram : G.S. Kulkarni and Arif S. Doctor, JJ.) when the matter was listed before the Court on 11th July, 2025.
2. On 11th July, 2025 the said learned Court passed an order recording in paragraph no.2, that an amount of Rs.1 Crore is alleged to have been paid by cheques to the Petitioner's husband. The second tranche of payment of Rs.2 Crores was to be received by him by post-dated cheques. However, this Court did not find anything on record to indicate as to whether the full amount was received and whether such post-dated cheques were encashed.
3. It is in this backdrop that the said learned Court passed an order directing status quo to be maintained with regard to the property in question. The Municipal Corporation was directed that no development permission be granted on the property in question, and if any development permission is already granted, it shall not be acted upon in any manner whatsoever.
Gauri Gaekwad 2 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2025 22:03:14 :::
918.WP-8996-2023.odt
4. On 24th July, 2025, an Interim Application was filed. The same learned Court was addressed by Ms. Nidhi Dotiya and Ms. Shweta Rathod. On 4th August, 2025, the Petitioner was granted permission to file a rejoinder affidavit with the observation that there shall be no further extension of time. On 18 th August, 2025, Ms. Shweta Rathod addressed the Court and took time to take instructions as she had received the affidavit on that date. On 2nd September, 2025, a last chance was granted by the same learned Court with the observation that on the adjourned date, neither the matter would be kept back, nor would it be adjourned, and if the Petitioner does not proceed in the matter, there will be no alternative but to dismiss the Petition for want of prosecution.
5. Today, once again, an adjournment is sought. We could have dismissed this Petition today. However, Ms. Sneha Agrawal, the learned Advocate, who had not appeared before this Court in this proceeding, any time before, submits that she would address the Court. She conceded that the amount of Rs.2 Crores has already been received by both the Petitioner and her husband through cheques and the amounts were encashed in 2011. The record reveals Gauri Gaekwad 3 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2025 22:03:14 :::
918.WP-8996-2023.odt that the Petitioners have received Rs.3.39 Crores after the Conveyance Deed dated 4th August, 2011 was signed and Rs.1 Crore was paid instantly. The remaining amount was received by the deceased Petitioner (now represented by the legal heirs) as in 2011.
6. One Special Civil Suit No.150 of 2016 seeking cancellation of the Conveyance Deed has already been filed. Another Civil Suit bearing No.126 of 2012 has been filed by the deceased Petitioner and her husband (since deceased), together praying for recovery of Rs.3.55 Crores on the contention that the said amount was given as a hand loan to the Defendants. That Suit is still pending.
7. In the light of the above, we are of the view that the above aspects were not brought to the notice of the learned Bench when the ad-interim order dated 11th July, 2025 was passed on appreciating the contentions of the Petitioners. Shri Godbole, the learned Senior Advocate submits that incorrect statements were made and the order dated 11th July, 2025 needs to be recalled. The said order was passed, when the Petitioners did not place page 27/28 Gauri Gaekwad 4 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2025 22:03:14 :::
918.WP-8996-2023.odt of the Conveyance Deed before the Court in the Petition, which is now brought on record by the Respondents.
8. We, therefore, find that it would be appropriate to place this matter before the same Court which passed the order dated 11th July, 2025.
9. As such, since it is our view that the matter should be placed before the same Bench which passed the order dated 11th July, 2025, and considering the strong objection of the Respondents to the continuation of the ad-interim relief, we are continuing the said relief for two days with liberty to the Petitioners to move an appropriate praecipe before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice of this Court, for placing the matter before the same Bench which had passed the order on 11th July, 2025.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
Gauri Gaekwad 5 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2025 22:03:14 :::