Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ, GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
Pawan Rajaramrao Kadam – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 6746 of 2024, Writ Petition No. 12870 of 2025, Writ Petition (ST) No. 17210 of 2024, Writ Petition (ST) No. 31132 of 2025
Decided On : 10-12-2025
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellants : Mayur Khandeparkar, Chinmay Acharya, Kevin Pereira, Balkrishna G. Tangsali, Anil V.Anturkar, Yatin Malvankar, Vaibhav Thorave, Anil Y. Sakhare, A.L. Mirza, Mandar Limaye
For the Respondents : Pravin Samdani, Aqil Khan, Insha Shaikh, Sauda S. Nachan, Afsha Khan, Dawood Khan, Girish Godbole, Rahul Soman, Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Ashutosh A. Kumbhakoni, Neha Bhide, Shruti D. Vyas, Vaibhav Charalwar, G.R. Raghuwanshi, R.M. Patne, Sameer Patil, Rahul Sinha, Soham Bhalerao, Harshit Tyagi, Prasad S. Dani, Sarang S. Aradhye, Gauri Velankar, Bharat R. Zavberi
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conclusion of arguments by parties (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. judgment reserved for decision (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Mr. Pravin Samdani, the learned senior counsel for the respondent-Developer in Writ Petition No.6746 of 2024 has concluded his arguments. Mr. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, the learned counsel for the respondent no.5-CREDAI-Banm-Raigad Welfare Association adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Pravin Samdani, the learned senior counsel for the respondent-Developer. Mr. Anil Sakhare, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition (St) No.31132 of 2025 made his submissions.
2. In rejoinder, Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.6746 of 2024 made his brief submissions.
3. The learned counsels for all the parties have concluded their arguments.
4. The judgment is reserved.
The court underscored the importance of balancing developer interests with regulatory compliance in assessing development proposals.
The judgment addresses the principles of natural justice and compliance with administrative protocols in matters affecting private property rights.
Concessions made by counsel without client authority can jeopardize client rights, and such concessions may be grounds for reviewing court orders.
The High Court emphasized the need for substantial justice over procedural technicalities, affirming that delay in producing documents should not bar justice if they are essential for adjudication.
The court emphasized the importance of timely decision-making by the development authority and the need for all stakeholders to be heard before reaching a decision.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
