LT.GENERAL YASH MALHOTRA AVSM (RETIRED) SINCE DECEASED(Legal Heir) HARISH SHROFF AND CO 1. vs URBAN HORSE PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD. ORIGINALLY KNOWN AS- TANNA PUNE — SA/647/2025

Case under C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order) Section 100. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 05th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010640232025

e-Filing Number

09-12-2025

Filing Number

SA/39365/2025

Filing Date

10-Dec-2025

Registration No

SA/647/2025

Registration Date

23-Dec-2025

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. Jamadar

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. Jamadar

Bench Type

Single

Category

ORDINARY CIVIL ( 30 )

Sub-Category

ORDINARY CIVIL ( 11 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

05-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 13-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order) Section 100

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.LT.GENERAL YASH MALHOTRA AVSM (RETIRED) SINCE DECEASED(Legal Heir) HARISH SHROFF AND CO 1.

  2. 2.SMT. NEELAM YASH MALHOTRA

  3. 3.CAPTAIN PREMANANDA GOSWAMI VM (RETIRED) (SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS SON REPRESENTATIVE)(Legal Heir)

    Adv. HARISH SHROFF AND CO2.

  4. 4.MR. RANJUL PREMANANDA GOSWAMI

  5. 5.MR. MEHERNOSH KARKARIA

    Adv. HARISH SHROFF AND CO

  6. 6.MISS. PRUDENCE SALIS

    Adv. HARISH SHROFF AND CO

  7. 7.MR. SHAILESH D PAHELWANI (THROUGH HIS SUCCESSOR IN TITLE)(Legal Heir)

    Adv. HARISH SHROFF AND CO

  8. 8.MR. ARUN MEHETA (THROUGH HIS SUCCESSOR IN TITLE)(Legal Heir)

    Adv. HARISH SHROFF AND CO

  9. 9.MRS. SUDHA ARUN MEHTA (THROUGH HER SUCCESSOR IN TITLE)(Legal Heir)

    Adv. HARISH SHROFF AND CO

  10. 10.MR. KERSI HILLOO

    Adv. HARISH SHROFF AND CO

  11. 11.MRS. BINAIFER K. HILOO

    Adv. HARISH SHROFF AND CO

  12. 12.MR. HEMANT WATSA SINCE DECEASED NOW REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE GLENDA WASTA

    Adv. HARISH SHROFF AND CO

  13. 13.MRS. GLENDA WASTA

    Adv. HARISH SHROFF AND CO

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.URBAN HORSE PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD. ORIGINALLY KNOWN AS- TANNA PUNE

    Adv. ,LJ LAW,LJ LAW,LJ LAW,Purnanand and Co,Purnanand and Co,Purnanand and Co 1123

  2. 2.SHRI. DIPAK TANNA(Legal Heir)2.

  3. 3.MR. NIRANJANA K. TANNA2.

  4. 4.MR. DIPAK TANNA

  5. 5.VINOD PURNMAL BANSAL

    Adv. LJ LAW

  6. 6.PRATIBHA VINOD BANSAL

    Adv. LJ LAW

  7. 7.KUNAL VINOD BANSAL

    Adv. LJ LAW

  8. 8.DIPTI VINOD BANSAL

    Adv. LJ LAW

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. JamadarView PDF

    Summary of SA/647/2025 The Bombay High Court dismissed apartment owners' second appeal against a developer regarding access rights to their residential complex. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish easementary rights over an adjoining plot or prove violations under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, as they had not clearly pleaded entitlement to use the adjoining plot's open spaces—only access through it. The court affirmed lower courts' findings that the adequate 9-meter access width satisfied the plaintiffs' requirements and rejected their attempt to introduce new MOFA-based claims not originally pleaded in the trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-May-2026

    Pronouncement Of Judgement

    Hon'ble Shri Justice N. J. Jamadar

  4. 15-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 10-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. SA/647/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of SA/647/2025 The Bombay High Court dismissed apartment owners' second appeal against a developer regarding access rights to their residential complex. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish easementary rights over an adjoining plot or prove violations under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, as they had not clearly pleaded entitlement to use the adjoining plot's open spaces—only access through it. The court affirmed lower courts' findings that the adequate 9-meter access width satisfied the plaintiffs' requirements and rejected their attempt to introduce new MOFA-based claims not originally pleaded in the trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case