Bombay High Court
Inorbit Malls India Pvt Ltd vs Kolte Patil Developers Ltd on 18 February, 2026
2026:BHC-OS:4669 1/2 13-COMIP-25-2009 (OS).DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
INTERIM APPLICATION(L) NO. 4823 OF 2026
IN
COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 25 OF 2009
Inorbit Malls (india) Pvt. Ltd.and Anr. ...Plaintiffs
Versus
Kolte-patil Developers Ltd And Ors. ...Defendants
_______
Mr. Virendra Tulzapulkar, Senior Counsel, Vikram Sathaye a/w Chakrapani
Misra, Ananya Misra i/b Khaitan & Co. for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Shailendra Kanetkar a/w Shubham Suryawanshi for Defendant No.1.
_______
CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
DATE : 18th FEBRUARY, 2026
P.C.
1. Dr. Tulzapulkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs submits that, the present Interim Application has been necessitated on account of the fact that, the Defendant No.2 has been amalgamated into a Defendant No.1 and it is thus that the name of Defendant No.2 would have to be struck off from the Plaint.
2. Mr. Kanetkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendant No.1 has opposed the Interim Application on the limited ground that the same contains averments qua Defendant No.1, which are not correct. He, however, does not dispute the fact that the Defendant No.2 has indeed amalgamated into Areeb ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2026 22:23:12 ::: 2/2 13-COMIP-25-2009 (OS).DOC Defendant No.1. Thus, in my view, the Interim Application would have to be allowed and is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause 'a'.
3. It is made clear that, the Court has not gone into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations which are stated to have been made against Defendant No.1, as the same are wholly unnecessary and irrelevant for the purposes of this Application.
[ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.] Areeb ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2026 22:23:12 :::