In a sharp reminder on the sanctity of pleadings, the Bombay High Court has refused to allow a prominent real estate company and its directors to file an additional written statement that sought to dramatically reverse their earlier admission to refund a nearly ₹50 lakh security deposit.
Justice N.J. Jamadar dismissed Writ Petition No. 898 of 2025 filed by Raghuleela Estates Private Limited (formerly Wadhwa and Associates Realtors Private Limited) and its directors Vijay Vasudeo Wadhwa and Vinita Vijay Wadhwa, observing that the move was a clear after-thought aimed at wriggling out of multiple explicit admissions made in the original written statement.
The case revolves around a Leave and Licence Agreement executed in 2018, under which Wadhwa and Associates granted Sarin Technologies India Private Limited the right to occupy Unit No. 104 in the upscale Platina building at Bandra Kurla Complex, along with two car parking spaces, for 36 months. Sarin Technologies paid an interest-free security deposit of ₹49,93,920.
Chronology of Events Sarin Technologies vacated and handed over possession of the premises on 7 November 2020. When the full security deposit was not refunded, it filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Mumbai, claiming ₹49,93,920 along with interest of ₹10,60,710 at 18% per annum.
On 4 August 2022, the defendants filed their written statement, making clear and repeated admissions that they were ready and willing to refund the deposit after deducting only ₹5,42,225 towards outstanding licence fees, CAM charges and electricity bills.
In November 2022, Sarin Technologies moved for summary judgment relying heavily on these admissions. The defendants then claimed they needed to carry out repairs. On 24 March 2023, they filed a Notice of Motion seeking leave to file an additional written statement, suddenly claiming ₹5,25,000 for repairs and ₹81,15,120 as loss of rental income for nine months — pushing their total counter-claim beyond ₹96 lakh.
The City Civil Court rejected the application on 6 May 2024, terming it an attempt to wriggle out of the admissions. Aggrieved, the defendants approached the High Court under Article 227.
Appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Nakul Jain with Ms. Varsha Kule (instructed by SMA Law Partners) argued that the omission was due to inadvertence by the earlier advocate and that justice demanded allowing the additional pleading to bring out the real controversy.
Mr. Shlok Parekh with Mr. Shray Mehta (instructed by Vaish Associates), appearing for Sarin Technologies, strongly opposed the plea, calling the additional written statement a belated tactical move to dilute the admissions and delay the suit.
Justice Jamadar upheld the trial court’s order, noting that the original written statement contained multiple categorical admissions across several paragraphs — not a mere stray sentence. He held that the proposed additional pleading represented a complete U-turn, filed only after the plaintiff had moved for summary judgment on the strength of those admissions. While courts adopt a liberal approach towards amendments in written statements, the power under Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC cannot be used to allow a party to completely displace the opponent from the benefit of clear admissions.
“As a responsible developer, The Wadhwa Group acknowledges the Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s order, which pertains solely to a procedural matter and does not impact the merits of the case. This matter continues to be actively contested before the City Civil Court. We remain committed to a fair and lawful resolution, while upholding the highest standards of governance and compliance.” ~Company Spokesperson
The High Court dismissed the writ petition with costs.
The original suit will now proceed in the City Civil Court based on the defendants’ first written statement, leaving Sarin Technologies in a strong position.
Also Read: CorporatEdge Debuts in Mumbai with 20,000 Sq. Ft. Luxury ‘Offitel’ at BKC Platina
