1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9301 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2473 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.9301 OF 2009 Swati Satish Shetye ..Petitioner Vs. M/s.Priyadarshani Estate Developers & Ors..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9326 OF 2009 Trupti Kashinath Rawool ..Petitioner Vs. M/s.Priyadarshani Estate Developers & Ors..Respondents Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders. Mr.H.S.Venegavkar for the petitioner. Mr.Vivek Walawalkar i/by S.R.Bhalekar for respondent nos.2 & 3. Ms.Manjiri Parasnis for respondent no.1 CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 24.9.2010. P.C. :- 1 Learned Advocate for the 2 petitioners in these two petitions on instructions of the petitioners in these petitions, seeks permission to withdraw Revision Application No.601/2004 on the ground that the petitioners want to lodge objections with the Special Recovery Officer. In view of the statement, the order dated 24.9.2009 in Revision Application No.601/2004 is set aside and Revision Application No. 601/2004 is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the revisional applicant therein to file objections with the Special Recovery officer. All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. Writ petitions are disposed off accordingly. Judge 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2473/2010 M/s.Priyadarshani Estate Developers Pvt.Ltd., ..Petitioners Vs. Swati Satish Shetye & Ors. ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Court’s or Judge’s orders Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders CORAM : A.S.OKA,J DATE : 24.9.2010 PC 1 Heard learned Advocate for the applicant. The applicant is the respondent no.1 in Writ Petition No. 9301/2009. The Writ petition was placed for admission on 9.8.2010. The order passed by this Court on 9.8.2010 reads thus :- 4 “By way of last chance, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 seeks two weeks time on the ground that the parties are in the process of settling their dispute. Time is granted. 2 By way of last chance, stand over to 23rd August, 2010.” 2 Thereafter on 30.8.2010 following order was passed by this Court :- “The learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent on instructions states that 1st respondent desires to settle the matter with the 2nd respondent. The learned Counsel on instructions further states that the 1st respondent will deposit a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- with the 2nd respondent within a period of two weeks from today. The aforesaid statements are accepted. Hence, stand over till 15th September 2010. The learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent states that she has made the statements on 5 the instructions of Mr.S.R.Dantal who is personally present in the Court.” 3 The prayer in this application is for grant of permission to withdraw the statement made on 30.8.2010 of depositing amount of Rs.50,00,000/- with the 3rd respondent-bank. 4 The learned Advocate for the applicant invited my attention to the averments made in paragraphs-2 to 4 of this application. She submitted that the statement was made before this Court as the 1st respondent was negotiating with a developer for re-development of the property of the 1st respondent and the applicant was expected to receive first installment to the tune of a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-. She submitted that in fact, a draft MOU was reduced into writing. The learned Advocate pointed out that in paragraph-5 it is stated that negotiations have not yet finalized and 6 the developer has not executed the said MOU and therefore, the applicant has not received any amount. 5 It is not possible to accept the prayer made in this application. From the aforesaid order, it is apparent that the statement made before this Court was after understanding the consequences of making such a statement. While making such a statement, the 1st respondent did not disclose that the developer had allegedly agreed to make payment of a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- to the bank. This Court accepted the statement of the applicant made on 30.8.2010 and adjourned the hearing of the Writ petition. The applicant cannot be permitted to withdraw the statement. 6 Hence, the application deserves to be rejected. The applicant will have to pay costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-. 7 The amount will be deposited with the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks from today. This order will be without prejudice to the rights of the 2nd & 3rd respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings on the basis of the statement of the applicant. JUDGE