Hemant Shantaram Pikale vs Family Care Hospitals Limited Advocate - PRAKRUTI JOSHI — WP/15442/2025

Case under Rent Act Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 05th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010477922025

e-Filing Number

03-09-2025

Filing Number

WP/30221/2025

Filing Date

09-Sep-2025

Registration No

WP/15442/2025

Registration Date

14-Nov-2025

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

Bench Type

Single

Category

RENT ACT ( 34 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS ( 99 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

05-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 28-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Rent Act Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Hemant Shantaram Pikale

    Adv. Indrajeet Hingane

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Family Care Hospitals Limited Advocate - PRAKRUTI JOSHI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Jun-2026

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

  3. 05-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

    Case Summary: WP/15442/2025 - Hemant Shantaram Pikale v. Family Care Hospitals Limited Decision: The High Court of Bombay allowed the petition and struck off the defendant's defense in a leave-and-license eviction suit. The court held that Family Care Hospitals' refusal to deposit Rs. 3,67,73,382 in arrears of license fees despite court orders—upheld through multiple appellate levels and by the Supreme Court—justified the drastic remedy of striking off defense under Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Key Reasoning: The court found that the Trial and Appellate Courts erred by citing pendency of revision proceedings and execution proceedings as reasons to reject the striking-off application. The court emphasized that once the deposit obligation attained finality (after Supreme Court dismissal on 18 October 2024), and the deadline of 30 September 2024 passed without compliance, the plaintiff acquired a right to striking off. Given the suit's seven-year pendency and the Supreme Court's direction to expedite hearing, relegating the matter back to the Trial Court would cause further delays contrary to justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 05-May-2026

    For Direction

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

  5. 30-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

  6. 30-Apr-2026

    For Direction

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

  7. 23-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

  8. 16-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

  9. 16-Apr-2026

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

  10. 02-Apr-2026

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

  11. 11-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

  12. 04-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

  13. 04-Mar-2026

    High On Board (Hob)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar

  14. 23-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. JamdarView PDF

  15. 23-Feb-2026

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar

  16. 09-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. JamdarView PDF

  17. 20-Jan-2026

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar

  18. 22-Dec-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. JamdarView PDF

  19. 25-Nov-2025

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar

  20. 17-Nov-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. JamdarView PDF

  21. 17-Nov-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  22. 09-Sep-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/15442/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/15442/2025 - Hemant Shantaram Pikale v. Family Care Hospitals Limited Decision: The High Court of Bombay allowed the petition and struck off the defendant's defense in a leave-and-license eviction suit. The court held that Family Care Hospitals' refusal to deposit Rs. 3,67,73,382 in arrears of license fees despite court orders—upheld through multiple appellate levels and by the Supreme Court—justified the drastic remedy of striking off defense under Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Key Reasoning: The court found that the Trial and Appellate Courts erred by citing pendency of revision proceedings and execution proceedings as reasons to reject the striking-off application. The court emphasized that once the deposit obligation attained finality (after Supreme Court dismissal on 18 October 2024), and the deadline of 30 September 2024 passed without compliance, the plaintiff acquired a right to striking off. Given the suit's seven-year pendency and the Supreme Court's direction to expedite hearing, relegating the matter back to the Trial Court would cause further delays contrary to justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case