Hazel Maria Fernandes v. V/s.T. Bhimjyani Realty Pvt. Ltd & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Megha 14_cp_586_24.docxCourt is also not prima facie impressed by contention raised on behalf of the Respondents that the Petitioner, with her eyes wide open, permitted disposal of the complaint by MahaRERA on 29 February2024 despite full knowledge of ICICI Bank initiating possession proceedings under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of SecurityInterest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). In fact, this Court is prima facieinclined to hold that the consent terms executed between the parties on1 May 2023 got stamp of approval by the order of MahaRERA dated29 February 2024. In Clause (k) of the consent terms dated 1 May 2023 Respondents emphatically agreed as under:-(k) The Respondent undertake to this Authority to reimburse the Complainant in case of any claim made by third party on the said flat No.1904.3)If there was any difficulty in not following the undertaking given in clause (k) of the consent terms, Respondentsought to have objected to disposal of complaint by MahaRERA on 29February 2024.
Far from doing so, Respondents’ Advocate made astatement before MahaRERA on 29 February 2024 that the complaint be disposed of in view of the consent terms. By doing so, the Respondents brought stamp of approval of MahaRERA to the consent terms on 29 February 2024.4)There is no dispute to the position that the ICICI Bankhas staked claim in respect of flat No.1903, which was sought to be given to the Petitioner in lieu of Flat No.1504, which the Respondentshave unauthorisedly sold to someone else. In fact, the very deal offered by the Respondents of allotting flat No.1903 was to wriggle out of Page No. 2 of 3 18 December 2025 Megha 14_cp_586_24.docxconsequences arising out of unauthorised sale of flat No.1504, booked by the Petitioner, to a third party. Whatever may be the reason, Petitioner is unable to enjoy ownership and possession of Flat No.1903even though Respondents have given clear undertaking in clause (k) of the consent terms that the Petitioner would be reimbursed in respect of any claim made by third party in respect of flat No.1903.
Since third party (ICICI Bank) has staked claim in respect of flat No.1903, the Respondents are bound to fulfill their obligation under clause (k) of the consent terms by returning the consideration amount received from the Petitioner. 5)Mr. Lad has fairly stated that in the event the consideration with interest is returned to the Petitioner, she would not stake any claim in respect of Flat No.1903. Therefore, in the event the Respondents succeed in their endeavour to have claim of ICICI Bankrejected in respect of flat No.1903, they would be in a position to deal with the same. Having expressly undertaken to reimburse the Petitionerin respect of any claim of Flat No.1903 by third party, the act of the Respondents in wriggling out of said undertaking would amount to breach of undertaking given in the consent terms.6)In my view therefore, prima facie case of breach of consent terms is made out. Issue notice to the Respondents under Rule9 of the Contempt of Courts (Bombay High Court), Rules 1994,returnable on 20 January 2026.[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 3 of 3 18 December 2025
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Securitisation andReconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of SecurityInterest Act, 2002 — s. 13(4).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 18 Dec 2025. The bench was SANDEEP V MARNE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.