1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2596 OF 2008 1.Mazda Imaging Pvt.Ltd. & others. ...Petitioners Vs. 1.The State of Maharashtra and others. ...Respondents. --- Mr.A.Y.Sakahare, Sr.Advocate with C.S.Balsara i/b. M/s.Hariani & Co., for Petitioners. Mr.Aspy Chinoy, Sr.Advocate i/b. Mahimtura & Co. for Respondent no.3. Mr.E.P.Bharucha, Sr. Advocate i/b. N.R.Gandhi, for Respondent nos.4 and 12. Mr.Shekhar Jagtap, for Respondent no.5. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATED: 28th April, 2009. P.C.:- 1. The petitioners by this petition are making an attempt to raise issues to which the petitioners are not entitled because of the conduct of the 2 petitioners. The petitioners in February,2000 signed the Agreement with full knowledge, that the property is to be redeveloped under Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control Regulations. They were given possession of the premises in January,2005. They have signed a detailed letter which shows that they were completely aware of what they are getting and what they are entitled to. After having accepted in the year 2005 possession of the premises and after having even acted on the arrangement which was entered into between the parties, in our opinion, filing of petition at such a belated stage is nothing but the abuse of process of the Court. It is obvious that the petition cannot be entertained. The petition is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.S.MOHITE,J.) 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODG) NO.474 OF 2009 1.M/S.Abhay Traders & others. ...Petitioners Vs. 1.The State of Maharashtra and others. ...Respondents. --- Mr.Raju Subramaniam, Sr.Advocate with Sameer Tendulkar, for Petitioners. Mr.Aspy Chinoy, Sr.Advocate i/b. Mahimtura & Co., for Respondent no.3. Mr.Shekhar Jagtap, for Respondent no.5. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATED: 28th April, 2009. P.C.:- 1. The petitioners by this petition are making an attempt to raise issues to which the petitioners are not entitled because of the conduct of the 4 petitioners. The petitioners in February,2000 signed the Agreement with full knowledge, that the property is to be redeveloped under Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control Regulations. They were given possession of the premises in January,2005. They have signed a detailed letter which shows that they were completely aware of what they are getting and what they are entitled to. After having accepted in the year 2005 possession of the premises and after having even acted on the arrangement which was entered into between the parties, in our opinion, filing of petition at such a belated stage is nothing but the abuse of process of the Court. It is obvious that the petition cannot be entertained. The petition is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.S.MOHITE,J.)