Bombay High Court
Transcon-Sheth Pvt.Ltd. vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 14 October, 2025
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2025:BHC-OS:18822
16_WP_1346_19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1346 OF 2019
Transcon-Sheth Creators Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents
Mr. Aditya Shiralkar a/w. Mr. Ishaan Choudhary, i/b. IC Legal for
petitioner.
Ms. Manisha Gawde, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2-State.
Mr. Piyush Shah for respondent Nos.3 to 5.
Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) for respondent No.7-SRA.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : 14th OCTOBER, 2025
P.C. :
. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated
12.11.2018 passed by the Maharashtra Slum Areas Tribunal (the Tribunal), whereby an application filed by the respondent Nos.3 and 5, seeking to bring them on record as legal heirs of original appellant No.1, was allowed and consequential amendments were permitted.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order deserves to be set aside, for the reason that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the suppression of facts on the part of respondent Nos.3 and 4, while moving the said application for being brought on record as legal heirs of the original appellant No.1.
3. In order to support the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case, the original appellant No.1 along with others, filed an appeal under Section 3c of 1/4 ::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2025 21:43:38 ::: 16_WP_1346_19.doc the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, which is pending before the Tribunal. The said appellant No.1 also filed a suit for injunction before the City Civil Court. It was submitted that in the plaint concerning the said suit, in paragraph No.14, the plaintiff i.e. the original appellant No.1 specifically referred to filing of the aforementioned appeal before the Tribunal along with others. On 12.05.2017, the original appellant No.1 died. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed chamber summons before the said Court for being brought on record as legal heirs of the plaintiff and in the said chamber summons, they made a statement that they were aware about several pending proceedings filed by original appellant No.1 before various authorities in Courts of law and having knowledge about all such proceedings, the chamber summons were being moved.
4. It was submitted that since respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed the chamber summons making the aforesaid statement and it has to be presumed that they had read the contents of the said plaint, they were very well aware about the pendency of the aforesaid appeal. The said chamber summons was allowed on 03.08.2017. Yet, the application for bringing them on record in appeal, was filed only on 06.09.2018 and it suffered from considerable delay. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the statements made in paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the said application, whereby the said respondents claimed that they became aware about the pendency of the appeal only when they received notice on 27.06.2018, are clearly false statements and this amounts to suppression of relevant facts from the Tribunal. It is submitted that the petitioner had highlighted the aforesaid aspect of the matter before the Tribunal and yet, the application has been erroneously allowed.
2/4 ::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2025 21:43:38 :::16_WP_1346_19.doc
5. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 supported the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
6. This Court has perused the relevant discussion, as found in the impugned order, wherein the Tribunal considered the said allegation of suppression of facts made against respondent Nos.3 and 4. A finding was rendered that the material on record did not support such allegation of suppression of facts and that sufficient ground was made out for condoning delay and permitting respondent Nos.3 and 4 to be brought on record as legal heirs of deceased appellant No.1.
7. Upon considering the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, this Court finds that the findings rendered in paragraph No.7 of the impugned order, can be said to be based on a proper appreciation of the material on record. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 indeed stated in the chamber summons that they were aware about all the proceedings initiated by appellant No.1 before various Courts and authorities. But, such a statement, on its own, cannot lead to a conclusion that they were aware about the aforesaid appeal. It would only mean that they were aware about all the proceedings that they were factually aware.
8. As regards the false statements made in paragraph Nos.8 and 9 in the application made before the Tribunal, this Court finds that the said allegation is based on the presumption that when respondent Nos.3 and 4 moved the aforesaid chamber summons before the City Civil Court, they had read the contents of the plaint and hence, it was to be presumed that they were aware about the pendency of the said proceedings.
3/4 ::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2025 21:43:38 :::16_WP_1346_19.doc
9. This Court finds substance in the approach adopted by the Tribunal that the appeal was filed through a Constituted Attorney and this could be one of the reasons why respondent Nos.3 and 4 may not have been aware about the pendency of the appeal.
10. It is a matter of record that respondent Nos.3 and 4 had moved the chamber summons before the City Civil Court in June 2017, after the original appellant No.1 died on 12.05.2017 and the chamber summons were granted on 03.08.2017.
11. It is difficult to understand as to why respondent Nos.3 and 4 would have deliberately not filed an application for bringing their names on record in the pending appeal, if they were aware about the pendency of the same. They had everything to lose and nothing to gain by such an action.
12. Therefore, this Court, in writ jurisdiction, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, which records appropriate reasons in paragraph No.7, while allowing the application moved by respondent Nos.3 and 4. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for interfering with the aforesaid order.
13. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(MANISH PITALE, J) Priya Kambli Digitally signed by PRIYA PRIYA KAMBLI Date:
KAMBLI 2025.10.14 17:47:16 +0530 4/4 ::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2025 21:43:38 :::