The Bombay High Court has dismissed a series of petitions filed by developers, including L&T Asian Realty Project LLP and a company linked to the Adani Group, against a legal suit concerning alleged fraud in slum development projects. The case, titled L&T Asian Realty Project LLP & Ors v. State of Maharashtra & Ors, was presided over by Justice Gauri Godse.
In her ruling, Justice Godse denied four interim applications filed by L&T Asian Realty Project LLP, L&T Realty Limited, Shiv Infra Vision Pvt Ltd, the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), and Portsmouth Buildcon Pvt Ltd, which is associated with the Adani Group. The court deemed these applications as unnecessary attempts to delay the commercial suit, and consequently, each entity was ordered to pay costs of ₹2 lakh.
The pleas from L&T and its co-petitioners were grounded on Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, aiming to have the suit, initiated by KS Chamankar Enterprises and its partners, dismissed. Chamankar has accused the developers of fraud, conspiracy, and wrongful termination as the project developers for several slum societies in Mumbai.
Justice Godse concluded that the suit presented a clear cause of action and raised issues that are appropriate for trial rather than preliminary dismissal. KS Chamankar Enterprises, the plaintiff, was initially appointed to develop three slum societies and had begun constructing a rehabilitation building. However, it was unexpectedly replaced by Shiv Infra Vision as the developer, prompting Chamankar to contest the decision in court.
The suit alleges that certain blacklisted developers, among them entities linked to L&T and Portsmouth Buildcon, colluded with SRA officials to orchestrate Chamankar’s removal and seize control of the slum rehabilitation project. The defendants sought the rejection of the commercial suit on several grounds, including absence of a cause of action, time limitations, and the necessity of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.
More Read
However, Justice Godse ruled that these defenses were insufficient for dismissing the suit at this stage. She noted that issues such as time limitations and alleged statutory bars involve complex questions of law and fact that require trial resolution. Despite established legal precedents narrowing the scope of Order VII Rule 11 and Section 12A, the developers persisted with numerous technical challenges, consuming significant court resources.
“Such attempts by the defendants defeat the very object of the Commercial Courts Act, namely, the speedy disposal of suits, and also unnecessarily consume the court’s time,” the court observed. Therefore, Justice Godse directed each of the four entities to pay costs of ₹2,00,000 to the plaintiff within two weeks, cumulatively imposing a cost of ₹8 lakh on the developers and the SRA CEO for their attempts to obstruct the suit.
The legal representatives for KS Chamankar included Advocates Rohan Savant, Ish Jain, Vinayak Siraskar, Duj Jain, Soham Bhagwat, Agam Mehta, and Aman Saraf, briefed by Kiran Jain & Co. Advocate Aparna D Vhatkar appeared for the Additional Chief Secretary and Chairman. Advocates Yashesh Kamdar, Brian Noronha, and Amisha Upadhyay, briefed by India Law LLP, represented L&T entities. Senior Advocate Simil Purohit, along with Advocates Shrikant Seegarla and Shraddha Achliya, briefed by Law Associates, appeared for Shiv Infra and its associates. Senior Advocate Pravin Samdani, with Advocates Aditya Shiralkar, Disha Shetty, and Jyoti Tated, briefed by Wadia Gandhy and Co., represented Portsmouth Buildcon. Advocates Mayur Khandeparkar, Jagdish G Aradwad (Reddy), and Abhijit Patil appeared for the SRA, with Additional General Pleader Himanshu Takke representing the State.
