2026:BHC-AS:876 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.16991 OF 2025 Ravi Laxman Vasnani and Ors. ... Petitioners versus Anup Parmanand Jhamtani … Respondent Mr. Naresh Shamnani with Mr. Aniket Khilnani, for Petitioners.

Ms. Minal Chandnani with Mr. Rajesh Ranglani, for Respondent.

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.

RESERVED ON : 23 DECEMBER 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 9 JANUARY 2026

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. The Petitioners – original Defendants, take exception to an order dated 20 August 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Pune, whereby leave to defend the Summary Suit has been granted to the Petitioners on the condition of deposit of a sum of Rs.58,44,263/-.

3. Shorn of superfluities, the background facts can be stated, as under :

3.1 For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are hereinafter referred to in the capacity in which they are arrayed before the Trial Court.

3.2 Plaintiff is the karta of Anup Parmanand Jhamtani, HUF. The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of tiles, CP fittings, sanitary fittings, construction materials, etc. under the name and style of of Jhamtani CeraKraft. Defendant No.1 was allegedly an employee of the Plaintiff. Defendant No.2 is the real brother of Defendant No.1. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the partnership firms and Defendant No.5 is a limited liability partnership firm. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 allegedly have vested interest in Defendant Nos.3 to 5 firms. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and/or their family members are the partners of the said firm.

3.3 The Plaintiff alleged, Defendant No.1, by taking undue advantage of his position, as the Manager of Jhamtani CeraKraft, caused wrongful loss to the Plaintiff by malafide diverting all the leads, contracts and business of the Plaintiff to Defendant Nos.3 to 5 firms. Upon the alleged fraud and misappropriation being unearthed, and, threatened with criminal action, the Defendants admitted and acknowledged their misdeeds, and voluntarily agreed to pay compensation for the wrongful loss caused to the Plaintiff.

3.4 Accordingly, a MOU was executed on 27 November 2020. It was, inter alia, agreed and acknowledged by the Defendants that they would pay a sum of Rs.1 Crore by way of compensation till the actual loss suffered by the Plaintiff on account of the unlawful and illegal acts of the Defendant No.1 was determined, after audit of the accounts.

3.5 The Plaintiff further asserted that, after the accounts were taken, the Defendants agreed and acknowledged the liability to pay a sum of Rs.1,41,00,000/- and, accordingly, a Supplementary MOU came to be executed on 16 December 2020. Out of the said amount, the Defendants paid a sum of Rs.54,81,737/- only. After adjusting a sum of Rs.27,74,000/- payable by the Plaintiff to the Defendant No.1 towards latter’s sales commission, the Defendants were liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.58,44,263/-. Hence, the Summary Suit for recovery of the said amount along with interest @ 18% p.a.

3.6 Upon service of the writ of summons, the Defendants appeared and sought leave to defend. It was, inter alia, contended by the Defendants that the Plaintiff had instituted the suit by misusing the custody of the MOUs, which Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were coerced to execute. It was categorically denied that the Defendant No.1 had committed misappropriation as alleged and the Defendants had, thus, acknowledged to pay the amount as indicated in the MOUs towards the compensation for the wrongful loss. On the contrary, according to the Defendants, there were commercial transactions between the Plaintiff and Defendants. The Plaintiff had, in fact, availed the services of the manufacture of modular kitchen from Defendant No.3 firm and had also purchased material for his projects from Defendant No.4. Defendant No.2 had taken a shop on leave and licence basis from the Plaintiff and stored the good