Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Order Date: 3 September 2026
Case Overview
- Petition: Writ Petition No.3403 of 2023 filed by Caxton House Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner) against Bombay Port Trust Authority (Respondent No.1) and others (Respondent No.3).
- Counsel: For Petitioner – Mr. Rajeev Waglay on behalf of Ms. Neha Pandya; for Respondent No.1 – Mr. Rahul Jain, ASA Advocate; for Respondent No.3 – Mr. R.S. Apte, Senior Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Sagar Ambedkar and Ms. Disha Nidre.
- Bench: Hon’ble Judges Bharati Dangre & Ashish S. Chavan.
- The parties, including the Bombay Port Trust Authority, agreed that the reliefs sought are governed by the judgment delivered on 25‑08‑2026 in Writ Petition No.3143/2022 (group of matters), wherein Judge Bharati Dangre was a party.
- The petitioner sought a declaration regarding the rates of rent fixed by the Mumbai Port Trust (MPT) under its Compromise Proposal, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court in Jamshed Hormusji Wadia vs. The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai & Anr.
- The Supreme Court order made the Compromise Proposal applicable to the petitioner up to 31‑03‑2024, with a stipulated 4% annual increase in October each year.
- The High Court noted that the Compromise Proposal had received approval from the High Court and subsequently from the Supreme Court, subject to certain modifications. Accordingly, the Port Authority was permitted to continue the Compromise Proposal until 31‑03‑2024 and, thereafter, to revise rents, provided the revisions do not constitute rack‑renting or profiteering, as emphasized by the Apex Court.
Final Outcome
- The writ petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), thereby granting the petitioner the sought declaration on rent rates.
- All pending interim applications, if any, are disposed of.
- The Port Authority may revise rents after 31‑03‑2024 but must adhere to the Supreme Court’s directive prohibiting rack‑renting.
Topics: Rent Declaration, Port Authority, Supreme Court Ruling