Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 08 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Applicant: Sainath Sanjay Bodkhe (Defendant No.6) seeking leave to defend a summary suit filed by plaintiff Mamta Manik Shahani (through POA holder Mr. Brijesh Bhatia) against Monarch Realty Management Services (Defendant No.1) and other respondents.
  • Respondents include partnership firms Monarch Realty Management Services and Monarch Greenscapes, individuals Gopal Amar Thakur, Hasmukh Amar Thakur, Anand Thakur, Ashok Nariyani, Roshan Sheth, Ramnivas Janardan Agarwal, Sachin Ramnivas Agarwal, and partnership Monarch Greenscapes.
  • Plaintiff alleged investments: USD 500,000; INR 2,02,50,000; INR 90,90,000; and SGD 700,000 (≈ INR 3,36,00,000), secured by flats in the Monarch Greenscapes project.
  • MoUs dated 10 Feb 2014, 15 Apr 2014, 25 Jun 2014, and 27 Jun 2014 documented the transactions and security of flats.
  • Plaintiff claimed only interest on the first tranche was paid; subsequent amounts remained unpaid; a post‑dated cheque for INR 3,36,00,000 was returned un‑encashed on 10 Jan 2018.
  • Plaintiff sued for recovery of INR 23,09,54,066 (principal INR 9,43,50,000 + interest INR 13,66,04,066) with additional interest at 24% p.a.
  • Defendant No.6 argued no privity of contract with plaintiff; he was not a signatory to MoUs or cheques and thus not liable.
  • The Civil Judge rejected Defendant No.6’s application for leave to defend, reasoning that the plaintiff’s affidavit implied Defendant No.6 was a partner of Defendant No.1.
  • On appeal, counsel for Defendant No.6 contended the judge mis‑applied law and that no allegation of partnership existed in the plaint; cited case law on partnership representation.
  • Counsel for plaintiff argued Defendant No.6 was a partner and thus liable; relied on prior judgments.

Legal Reasoning

  • The Court examined the plaint and found no explicit allegation that Defendant No.6 was a partner of Defendant No.1; the only reference was that he was a “business partner/friend.”
  • The plaintiff’s later affidavit‑in‑reply suggested partnership, but this was not contested, leading the trial judge to treat it as an admission – the Court held this was erroneous.
  • The Court reiterated the law on granting leave to defend under Order 37: a substantial defence or a genuine triable issue warrants unconditional leave; denial is only for frivolous or sham defences.
  • Citing Supreme Court judgments (Raj Duggal, IDBI Trusteeship Services, B.L. Kashyap), the Court concluded Defendant No.6 raised a substantial defence and a genuine triable issue regarding absence of privity.
  • Therefore, the trial judge’s refusal constituted a manifest error.

Final Outcome

  • The Civil Revision Application is allowed.
  • The impugned order dated 18 February 2025 is quashed and set aside.
  • Defendant No.6 (Sainath Sanjay Bodkhe) is granted unconditional leave to defend the summary suit.
  • He must file his written statement within 30 days from the order date.
  • No costs are awarded.

Topics: Court Procedure, Leave to Defend