Mafatlal Industries Limited vs Chalasani Venkata Narsimha Rao And Ors

ik-192844936 Bombay High Court 24 December 2025 • WRIT PETITION NO.6686 OF 2025; WRIT PETITION NO.6718 OF 2025 • 22 min read

Judges (1)

N.J. Jamadar Delivered

Counsel (20)

Abhijit Patil Counsel Respondent Akash Rebello Counsel Applicant Akshay Naidu Counsel Respondent Anil Wagh Counsel Applicant Deepti Thorat Counsel Respondent Devendra Mishra Counsel Applicant Jagdish G. Aradwad Counsel Respondent Nadeem Sharma Counsel Applicant Nidhi Chauhan Counsel Respondent Parag G Counsel Applicant Priya Chaubey Counsel Respondent Ravi Kant Purohit Counsel Respondent Rohaan Cama Counsel Applicant S.L. Babar Counsel Respondent Sapna Raichure Counsel Respondent Savina R. Crasto Counsel Respondent Shanay Shah Counsel Respondent Sharan Jagtiani Counsel Respondent Shraddha Achaliya Counsel Respondent Vishwanath Patil Counsel Respondent

Parties (6)

Apex Grievance Redressal Committee Respondent Mafatlal Industries Limited Respondent Kishor Dagdu Shirke Petitioner Lenzil Leo Fernandes Petitioner Rajendra Gajraj Singh Applicant Vijay Manohar Shirke @ Virendra Vijay Shirke Applicant

Case Significance

Mafatlal Industries Limited vs Chalasani Venkata Narsimha Rao And Ors is a Bombay High Court decision dated December 24, 2025 (citation: ik-192844936). Applicants in two writ petitions sought to amend their petitions to incorporate additional grounds challenging the AGRC's order and a subsequent LOI in a slum rehabilitation dispute involving Mafatlal Industries' property. The Court held that amendments challenging the AGRC order of July 2022 could not be permitted as they were barred by the principle of finality following a Division Bench order, but permitted a limited amendment to challenge the subsequent LOI dated 26 March 2024 as a conseq The case was heard by Justice N.J. Jamadar.

Summary

Applicants in two writ petitions sought to amend their petitions to incorporate additional grounds challenging the AGRC's order and a subsequent LOI in a slum rehabilitation dispute involving Mafatlal Industries' property. The Court held that amendments challenging the AGRC order of July 2022 could not be permitted as they were barred by the principle of finality following a Division Bench order, but permitted a limited amendment to challenge the subsequent LOI dated 26 March 2024 as a consequential amendment. The applications were partly allowed.

What was the outcome of Mafatlal Industries Limited vs Chalasani Venkata Narsimha Rao And Ors?

Applicants in two writ petitions sought to amend their petitions to incorporate additional grounds challenging the AGRC's order and a subsequent LOI in a slum rehabilitation dispute involving Mafatlal...

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official India Courts portal.

Read on Indian Kanoon

Source: Indian Kanoon (ik-192844936)