Bombay High Court
Jik Industries Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 February, 2026
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2026:BHC-OS:3624-DB
908.os.wpl.32927.2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION (L) NO.32927 OF 2025
JIK Industries Ltd. ....Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents
----
Mr. Shubham Dhamnaskar i/b. Ms. Prakruti Joshi for the Petitioner.
Smt. Vaishali Choudhari, Addl. GP for Respondent Nos.1 and 4 -
State.
Mr. Shrirang Katneshwarkar a/w Mr. Yash Palan (through VC) for
Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
----
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 4th FEBRUARY, 2026
P.C. :-
1. Considering the order we are passing after hearing the learned advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Addl. Govt. Pleader for the State, we do not have to advert to all the submission of the learned advocates. Suffice it to say that the competent Authority has already passed an order dated 15th December, 2018, informing the Petitioner that the Application for exemption of payment of stamp duty for increase in the authorised share capital and issuing fresh equity shares / convertible instruments, has been Vina Khadpe 1 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 21:42:53 :::
908.os.wpl.32927.2025.odt rejected. There is no dispute that the Petitioner has received the said order.
2. This is a case wherein the Petitioner has woken up from deep slumber. To bridge the gap / delay, the Petitioner moved an Application under Right to Information Act dated 10 th December, 2024. The Public Information Officer, informed the Petitioner vide communication dated 15th January, 2025, that the questions asked, in the Application sent to the Inspector General of Registration & Controller of Stamps, State of Maharashtra, Pune, would have to be addressed to the Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps.
3. The learned Addl. Govt. Pleader is right in submitting that an order has already been passed on 15th December, 2018. Filing of RTI Application is not a remedy and also would not cause bridging of the delay. The Petitioner will have to approach an appropriate Forum in accordance with the Statute for challenging the said order.
Vina Khadpe 2 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 21:42:54 :::
908.os.wpl.32927.2025.odt
4. Considering the above and the delay of seven years, we are not inclined to entertain this Petition.
5. If the Petitioner has any statutory remedy available for assailing the order dated 15th December, 2018, all contentions of all stakeholders, including the point of delay, are kept open.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
Vina Khadpe 3 of 3
::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 21:42:54 :::