In a sharp rebuke to belated claims, the Bombay High Court has slammed the brakes on a dramatic attempt to unwind a 2012 property transfer worth ₹12 crore, granting strong interim protection to real estate firm Pankh Properties Private Limited while dismissing with costs the original owner’s counter-move.
The dispute centres on Adenwalla Building, a leasehold property in Matunga-Dadar (Plot No. 626 / new Survey No. 1109 part, C.S. No. 633/10), where original lessee Rusi Sorabji Khambatta (Defendant No.1) transferred his entire leasehold rights — including the ground-plus-three-storey building and all tenant tenancies — to Pankh Properties Private Limited via a registered Deed of Assignment dated 20 November 2012.
Chronological Timeline of the High-Stakes Deal & Dispute
- Pre-2012: Mr. Khambatta held leasehold rights from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). He was already litigating eviction proceedings (since 1993) against tenant Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck in Flat No. 9 at the Small Causes Court.
- 20 November 2012 — The core transaction:
- Registered Deed of Assignment → Mr. Khambatta unconditionally assigned the full leasehold interest in the building to Pankh Properties for ₹12 crore (full consideration received and admitted).
- Registered Irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of Pankh Properties.
- Registered Declaration confirming handover of physical possession and all original title documents.
- Individual Letters of Attornment sent to tenants, shifting landlord status to Pankh Properties (except the disputed Flat No. 9).
- Separate unregistered Supplemental Agreement (same date) → Mr. Khambatta expressed interest in purchasing 7,750 sq ft in any future redevelopment at ₹7,250 per sq ft — a conditional “wish” clause, not linked to the main Deed.
- 2013 → Pankh Properties wrote to all tenants proposing redevelopment terms. No meaningful response came (except from Mr. Khambatta’s family members). Redevelopment stalled indefinitely.
- 2012–2025 (13 quiet years) → Pankh Properties acted as landlord: collected rents, paid municipal taxes, repair cess, and maintained the property uninterrupted. Mr. Khambatta raised no objection and never pursued specific performance of the redevelopment “wish”.
- 2025 developments:
- Shareholding of Pankh Properties changed hands (allegedly coming under influence of tenant Darius Kavasmaneck or family).
- Mr. Khambatta claimed this amounted to collusion to block redevelopment.
- 11 June 2025 → Mr. Khambatta issued a termination notice purporting to cancel the 2012 Deed and Power of Attorney, citing:
- Alleged linkage to unfulfilled redevelopment.
- Lack of prior MCGM permission under Section 92(dddd) of the MMC Act.
- Fraud/collusion.
- Public notices in newspapers warned third parties against dealing with Pankh Properties.
- Pankh Properties filed Suit No. 359/2025 + Interim Application No. 7408/2025 seeking injunctions against the termination and slander of title.
- Mr. Khambatta filed a counter-claim + Interim Application (L) No. 2426/2026 demanding cancellation of the Deed, declaration that the deal was redevelopment-only, and massive damages (over ₹310 crore claimed).
Bombay High Court Order (4 March 2026) — Justice Milind N. Jadhav
After detailed hearings, the court delivered a prima facie verdict strongly favouring Pankh Properties:
- The 2012 Deed was absolute, unconditional, and fully acted upon — money paid, possession delivered, tenancies attorned.
- Unilateral termination of registered documents after 13 years is legally impermissible (citing Supreme Court precedents like Thota Ganga Laxmi).
- Missing MCGM permission does not void the Deed; it can be regularized via penalty/premium — not a ground for Mr. Khambatta to reclaim after pocketing ₹12 crore.
- The Supplemental Agreement (redevelopment interest) was separate and frustrated due to lack of tenant consent; it never conditioned the main Deed.
- Shareholding changes in Pankh Properties are irrelevant corporate matters; no fraud proven to unwind the 2012 transfer.
- Mr. Khambatta’s 13-year silence after receiving full payment makes his 2025 reversal an “afterthought and counterblast”.
Outcome:
- Pankh Properties’ interim application allowed → Temporary injunction restraining Mr. Khambatta (and others) from acting on the termination notice, holding himself out as owner, or interfering.
- Mr. Khambatta’s interim application rejected with ₹25,000 costs payable to the Bombay High Court Library.
- Stay of the order refused.
Why This Order Matters
The ruling reinforces core principles in property law: once a registered conveyance is completed with consideration paid and possession transferred, it cannot be casually undone years later by the transferor — especially not via mere notice. It protects bona fide assignees from opportunistic reversals, deters title-slandering through public notices, and signals that technical lapses (like missing civic permissions) do not automatically nullify deals after decades of acceptance. In Mumbai’s high-stakes redevelopment market, where leasehold transfers and stalled projects are common, the decision offers clarity and deters similar belated challenges.
The full suit continues, but today’s interim order tilts the balance decisively toward Pankh Properties while criticising Mr. Khambatta’s conduct.
Also Read: Bombay High Court Rejects Vile Parle Housing Society’s Demand for Excess Lease Premium
