Bombay High Court
Lakdawala Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs Anita Marwah on 17 October, 2025
Author: M. S. Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
2025:BHC-OS:19760-DB 18-WPL-22951-2024-J-F.DOCX
Amol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 22951 OF 2024
1. M/s. Lakdawala Developers Pvt Ltd, ]
Through its Director, Mr. Aamir Suleman ]
Bhuwed, age 47 year, Regd. Office:Lathiwala ]
Apartment, 1st Floor, Shivdas Chapshi Road, ]
Near Sales Tax Office, Mazgaon, ]
Mumbai 400010. ]
2. Usman Ismail Lakdawala, ]
Ex Director, age 40 year, ]
R/o- A/72, Gordon Hall Apartments, Sofia ]
Zubair Road, Nagpada, Mumbai-400008 ]
3. Musa Ismail Lakdawala, ]
Ex Director, age 48 year, ]
R/o- C/51, Gordon Hall Apartments, Sofia ]
Zubair Road, Nagpada, Mumbai-400008 ]
Digitally
signed by
AMOL
AMOL PREMNATH
PREMNATH JADHAV
4. Ebrahim Ismail Lakdawala, ]
JADHAV Date:
2025.10.18
19:23:39
Ex Director, age 49 year, ]
+0530
R/o- C/11, Gordon Hall Apartments, Sofia ]
Zubair Road, Nagpada, Mumbai-400008 ]
5. Mohammed Ismail Lakdawala, ]
Ex Director, age 55 year, ]
R/o- C/72, Gordon Hall Apartments, Sofia ]
Zubair Road, Nagpada, Mumbai-400008 ]
6. Anwar Ismail Lakdawala, ]
Ex Director, age 60 year, ]
Page 1 of 12
::: Uploaded on - 18/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/10/2025 22:57:07 :::
18-WPL-22951-2024-J-F.DOCX
R/o- A/21, Gordon Hall Apartments, Sofia ]
Zubair Road, Nagpada, Mumbai-400008 ]
7. Mohammed Zubair Adam Lakdawala, ]
Ex Director, age 60 year, ]
R/o- A/21, Gordon Hall Apartments, Sofia ]
Zubair Road, Nagpada, Mumbai-400008 ]...Petitioners
Versus
Dr. Anita Marwah,
R.o- 17/778, 779, 780, Punjabi Colony, Sion ]
Koliwada, G.T.B. Nagar, Mumbai-400037 ]...Respondent
______________________________________________________
Mr Malhar Zatakia, with Mr Rajemdra Rathod, i/b, Mr Dhurv
B Jain, for the Petitioners.
Mr Mubashir Hussein, i/b, Hussein & Co., Advocates & Legal
Counsels, for the Respondent.
______________________________________________________
CORAM M.S. Sonak &
Advait M. Sethna, JJ.
DATED: 17 October 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT:- (Per M. S. Sonak, J)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the Counsel for the Parties.
3. This Petition challenges the National Commission's order dated 27 May 2024 by which the National Commission has declined to condone the delay of 68/69 days in preferring an Page 2 of 12 ::: Uploaded on - 18/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/10/2025 22:57:07 ::: 18-WPL-22951-2024-J-F.DOCX Appeal against the State Commission's order dated 1 September 2023, which the Petitioners received on 16 October 2023.
4. We have perused the Application seeking condonation of the delay and the impugned order. The reason given is that after the State Commission's order was received, Board Meetings were held with the Directors of the Petitioner- Company and a decision was taken to institute a joint Appeal. This is because liability was affixed on the Company as well as the Directors. However, Appellants 2 to 7, who were the erstwhile Directors and upon whom liability was foisted, were not readily available in Mumbai. The Appeal could be filed only after they were available. Besides, it was pointed out that some time was spent obtaining and arranging all necessary documents for filing the Appeal.
5. In this case, the delay is 69 days. The explanation offered does constitute sufficient cause, and such a delay could have been condoned by imposing some costs on the Petitioners. The finding about the explanation or the cause shown not even being plausible cannot, in the facts and Page 3 of 12 ::: Uploaded on - 18/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/10/2025 22:57:07 ::: 18-WPL-22951-2024-J-F.DOCX circumstances of this case, be accepted.
6. The National Commission has relied upon the decision in State Bank of India Vs B.S. Agricultural Industries 1. From the quoted portion, the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision is that a complaint which is barred by time cannot be decided on merits, and such a decision would amount to an illegality.
7. The National Commission has also relied upon R.B. Ramlingam Vs R B Bhavaneshwari2 in which it is held that the true guide as to whether sufficient cause is made out is to see whether the Petitioners have acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his Appeal/Petition. In the facts of the present case, no negligence could be inferred. The Petitioners have acted with reasonable diligence.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N Balakrishnan Vs M Krishnamurthy3 held that in all matters of condonation of delay, there is bound to be some lapse on the part of the party seeking condonation. However, that by itself should not be a ground to nonsuit such an Applicant and 1 (2009) 5 SCC 121 2 2009 CLT 188 (SC) 3 1998 (7) SCC 123 Page 4 of 12 ::: Uploaded on - 18/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/10/2025 22:57:07 ::: 18-WPL-22951-2024-J-F.DOCX deprive the Applicant of an opportunity of contesting the matter on the merits. As long as the reason or the cause shown is not mala fide or that the delay is on account of ulterior purposes only to harass the opposite party, the Courts are expected to show utmost consideration to the suitor. The prejudice that is bound to occasion the opposite party to a certain extent can always be compensated by way of costs or other forms of compensation.
9. The National Commission has also relied upon the decision in Ram Lal Vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd4, which requires the court to consider all relevant facts for determining whether sufficient cause has been shown. The National Commission has also relied upon in Basawaraj Vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer5, which holds that the Court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose.
10. All these decisions, which the National Commission has quoted, require the consideration of all relevant factors to determine whether sufficient cause has been shown. On 4 AIR 1962 SC 361 5 2013 AIR SCW 6510 Page 5 of 12 ::: Uploaded on - 18/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/10/2025 22:57:07 ::: 18-WPL-22951-2024-J-F.DOCX record, there is nothing to show that the Petitioners have benefited disproportionately on account of the delay of 69 days. There is also nothing on record to show that the delay was mala fide or merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. The quantum of the delay is also not inordinate.
11. Mr Hussein, the learned Counsel for the Respondent, however, correctly submitted that the Respondent, who has succeeded before the State Commission, has neither received possession of the Apartment nor received the amount which the State Commission has directed the Petitioners to pay to the Respondent. He pointed out that the State Commission order was made on 01 September 2023, and now the period of almost two years has lapsed, and the Respondent has not received any amount. He has pointed out that by now; the Petitioners are due and payable an amount of approximately Rs. 1.10 Crores. He therefore submitted that if the delay is condoned and an opportunity is granted to the Petitioners to pursue their Appeal on merits, there would be further delay.
12. The contentions of Mr Hussein, learned Counsel for the Respondent, deserve to be considered. However, based on Page 6 of 12 ::: Uploaded on - 18/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/10/2025 22:57:07 ::: 18-WPL-22951-2024-J-F.DOCX these contentions, we do not think that the delay of 69 days should be condoned. These contentions are required to be considered for determining either the amount of costs that the Petitioners should be saddled with or whether any other directions should be issued to the Petitioners for payment of at least a portion of the amount which the State Commission has directed the Petitioners to pay to the Respondent.
13. At this stage, Mr Zatakia, the learned Counsel for Petitioners, on instructions from Petitioners, has submitted that the Petitioners will, without prejudice to their rights and contentions in their challenge to the State Commission's order dated 01 September 2023, pay to the Respondent a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- on or before 17 November 2025. He submitted that he has instructions to give an undertaking on behalf of the Petitioners that such amount would indeed be paid on or before 17 November 2025.
14. Mr Zatakia further submitted that directions could be issued to the National Commission to consider the Petitioners' Appeal on merits and also take up for consideration the Petitioners' Application for interim reliefs pending such Page 7 of 12 ::: Uploaded on - 18/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/10/2025 22:57:07 ::: 18-WPL-22951-2024-J-F.DOCX Appeal. He submitted that direction could also be issued to the National Commission for adjusting this amount of Rs. 20,00,000/-, should the National Commission be inclined to grant any interim relief, subject to payment of the amounts directed by the State Commission.
15. Therefore, by considering the totality of the circumstances, we are satisfied that a case has been made out to condone the delay of 69 days in instituting the Appeal against the order of 1 September 2023, subject to the Petitioners paying the Respondent without prejudice, an amount of Rs. 20,00,000 on or before 17 November 2025. The undertaking for such payment is now accepted as an undertaking given to this Court.
16. If the above amount is not paid by 17 November 2025, then this Petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,00,000/- payable by the Petitioners to the Respondent. This dismissal shall be without prejudice to the right of the Respondent to file a Contempt Petition against the Petitioners for breaching a solemn undertaking given to this Page 8 of 12 ::: Uploaded on - 18/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/10/2025 22:57:07 ::: 18-WPL-22951-2024-J-F.DOCX Court and persuading the Court to pass a discretionary order by considering the undertaking now given.
17. However, suppose the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- is indeed paid without prejudice to the Respondent. In that case, the delay of 69 days in instituting the Appeal before the National Commission shall stand condoned, and the National Commission shall admit the Petitioners' Appeal and dispose of the same on its own merit and in accordance with law. We request the National Commission to dispose of this Appeal as expeditiously as possible.
18. Besides, the payment of this amount will not absolve the Petitioners from seeking interim relief if the Petitioners do not wish to pay the balance amount pending the disposal of the Appeal. If such an Application is made, we are sure that the National Commission will dispose of such Application in accordance with the law and on its own merits. However, suppose the National Commission decides to impose any condition regarding the deposit of the amount awarded by the State Commission or any part thereof. In that case, the National Commission is requested to consider the payment of Page 9 of 12 ::: Uploaded on - 18/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/10/2025 22:57:07 ::: 18-WPL-22951-2024-J-F.DOCX Rs. 20,00,000/- that shall have been made by the Petitioners to the Respondent, though, without prejudice.
19. We make the Rule absolute in the above terms. However, we clarify that we have not examined the merits of the rival contentions regarding the State Commission's order dated 1 September 2023. All contentions of all parties on this issue are left open to be decided by the National Commission in case the Petitioners pay the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- to the Respondent in accordance with the undertaking now given by all the Petitioners to this Court on or before 17 November 2025.
20. Mr Zatakia, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, again, without prejudice submitted that though the Petitioners are not due and payable any amount to the Respondent, with a view to ending the litigation, the Petitioners offer to pay an amount of Rs. 85,00,000/- to the Respondent within a period of eight weeks from today subject to the cancellation of the sale deed by the Respondent. He submitted that the Petitioners would bear all fees relating to cancellation and reimbursement of stamp duty, etc. Page 10 of 12 ::: Uploaded on - 18/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/10/2025 22:57:07 ::: 18-WPL-22951-2024-J-F.DOCX
21. Mr Hussein, the learned Counsel for Respondent, reported that he has no instructions and therefore, he would not be in a position to make any statement regarding this offer.
22. We have recorded the above developments and statements because we, too, feel that the parties should explore the possibility of a settlement. On our own, we also put it to the parties that the Petitioners should pay an amount of Rs. 1 Crore within three months in full and final settlement, and the Respondent may consider accepting the same. However, neither counsel has instructions on this matter, and therefore, we leave the matter at that. Nothing prevents the parties from exploring the possibility of settlement instead of continuing to litigate. An ounce of mediation is better than a ton of litigation.
23. The execution proceedings are scheduled on 3 November 2025. Mr Zatakia states that before 3 November 2025, an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- [out of the Rs 20 lakhs undertaken to be paid] would be paid by the Petitioners to the Respondent, again without prejudice. He states that the Page 11 of 12 ::: Uploaded on - 18/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/10/2025 22:57:07 ::: 18-WPL-22951-2024-J-F.DOCX balance amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- would be paid on or before 17 November 2025.
24. If the executing forum finds that an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- has been paid on or before 3 November 2025, then the executing forum would defer the execution proceedings to some date in the third week of December. If by that time, the Petitioners fail in obtaining any interim relief from the National Commission, the executing authority will be free to proceed with the execution proceedings in accordance with the law.
25. This Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
26. All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this order.
(Advait M. Sethna, J) (M.S. Sonak, J) Page 12 of 12 ::: Uploaded on - 18/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/10/2025 22:57:07 :::