The Bombay High Court has taken stern action against the Collector of Mumbai and a Tahsildar for failing to comply with its orders directing execution of decrees passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA). This judgment underscores the judiciary's intolerance for administrative non-compliance and the serious consequences of undermining judicial authority, particularly in matters involving statutory obligations under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sneha Sachhanand Tejwani, approached the Bombay High Court seeking execution of a decree passed by MahaRERA. The decree pertained to a real estate dispute involving Respondent No. 4, Neeraj Gunvant Kakad, who was alleged to have frustrated the execution of the decree by exploiting legal loopholes and failing to disclose his interests in multiple entities.
Key Facts
- The petitioner had obtained a decree from MahaRERA, which remained unexecuted due to non-compliance by the judgment debtor, Neeraj Gunvant Kakad.
- On 10th February, 2026, the High Court directed Respondent No. 4 to disclose all entities in which he had a monetary interest, but the disclosure was incomplete.
- On 25th February, 2026, the Court expressed concern over the non-execution of MahaRERA decrees and requested the Advocate General to formulate a scheme for their execution.
- On 8th July, 2026, the Court passed a detailed order directing the Collector of Mumbai to verify and disclose all entities in which Respondent No. 4 had investments or monetary interests.
Procedural History
- 10th February, 2026: High Court directs Respondent No. 4 to disclose entities in which he has monetary interest.
- 25th February, 2026: Court requests Advocate General to assist in formulating a scheme for execution of MahaRERA decrees.
- 8th July, 2026: Court directs Collector of Mumbai to file an affidavit disclosing all entities linked to Respondent No. 4.
- 10th July, 2026: Tahsildar Dilip Rayannavar files an affidavit instead of the Collector, leading to contempt proceedings.
The Parties' Positions
- Petitioner: Argued that Respondent No. 4 was deliberately frustrating the execution of the MahaRERA decree by failing to disclose his interests in multiple entities. Requested appointment of a Court Receiver to secure her claim.
- Respondent No. 4: Contended that no agreement had been executed for the transfer of a flat at Dan Kutir CHSL, hence it was not disclosed in the affidavit.
- State (Respondent Nos. 1-3): The Government Pleader argued that the Collector had authorized the Tahsildar to file the affidavit, but failed to comply with the Court's directions.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Execution of the MahaRERA decree.
- Contempt proceedings against the Collector of Mumbai and Tahsildar Dilip Rayannavar for non-compliance with the Court's orders.
- Appointment of a Court Receiver to take possession of a flat allegedly belonging to Respondent No. 4.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Collector of Mumbai and the Tahsildar could be held in contempt of court for failing to comply with the High Court's directions under Section 2(c) read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and whether the Tahsildar's false statements in his affidavit warranted action under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) or Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The petitioner's counsel argued that Respondent No. 4 was deliberately evading compliance with the MahaRERA decree by failing to disclose his interests in multiple entities.
- Emphasized that the Collector of Mumbai had failed to comply with the Court's order dated 8th July, 2026, thereby committing contempt of court.
- Requested the appointment of a Court Receiver to secure the petitioner's claim over a flat allegedly belonging to Respondent No. 4.
For the Respondent/State
- The Government Pleader submitted that the Collector of Mumbai had authorized Tahsildar Dilip Rayannavar to file the affidavit.
- However, the affidavit failed to comply with the Court's directions, as it did not disclose the required information about Respondent No. 4's entities.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the Collector of Mumbai had failed to comply with its order dated 8th July, 2026, which directed the Collector to personally verify and disclose all entities in which Respondent No. 4 had monetary interests. Instead, Tahsildar Dilip Rayannavar filed an affidavit, which the Court found to be an act of usurping the Collector's authority and undermining judicial proceedings.
The Court held:
"It is thus apparent that, Mr. Dilip Rayannavar has usurped the powers of Collector of Mumbai. By filing such Affidavit, he has undermined the Authority of this Court. Consequently, he has not only interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings, but has also intentionally interfered and obstructed the administration of justice."
The Court further noted that the affidavit filed by the Tahsildar was palpably false and did not comply with the directions issued in its order. This non-compliance amounted to contempt of court under Section 2(c) read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and warranted action under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. for making false statements.
The Court also addressed the petitioner's request for the appointment of a Court Receiver to secure her claim over a flat at Dan Kutir CHSL. While Respondent No. 4 argued that no agreement had been executed for the transfer of the flat, the Court deemed it necessary to appoint a Receiver to protect the petitioner's interests.
The Verdict
The Court issued the following directions:
- Notice of contempt to the Collector of Mumbai and Tahsildar Dilip Rayannavar under Section 2(c) read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, requiring them to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated.
- Notice to Tahsildar Dilip Rayannavar under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. to show cause why action should not be taken for making false statements in his affidavit.
- Appointment of the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, to take physical possession of the flat at Dan Kutir CHSL, Plot No. 308, CTS No. E/495, Village Bandra, 12th Road, Khar (West), Mumbai-52, by 13th July, 2026.
- The matter was adjourned to 17th July, 2026 for further hearing.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Judicial Authority Is Non-Negotiable
This judgment reaffirms that judicial orders must be scrupulously complied with, particularly when issued by a competent authority like MahaRERA. Practitioners should note:
- Administrative officers cannot substitute their judgment for judicial directions. The Collector's failure to personally comply with the Court's order, and the Tahsildar's unauthorized affidavit, were treated as serious contemptuous acts.
- False or incomplete affidavits can lead to proceedings under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., which deals with offences committed in relation to judicial proceedings.
Execution of Decrees Requires Strict Compliance
- Revenue authorities must treat decrees passed by statutory bodies like MahaRERA as binding and execute them without delay. Failure to do so can result in contempt proceedings.
- Judgment debtors cannot exploit procedural loopholes to frustrate the execution of decrees. Courts are likely to take a dim view of such tactics and may impose severe penalties.
Court Receivership as a Remedy
- In cases where judgment debtors are evasive, appointment of a Court Receiver is a viable remedy to secure the claimant's interests. Practitioners should consider this option where assets are at risk of dissipation or concealment.
- The Court's willingness to appoint a Receiver on short notice (by 13th July, 2026) demonstrates its proactive approach in protecting litigants' rights.
Contempt Proceedings Are a Serious Deterrent
- Contempt of court is not limited to wilful disobedience but also includes acts that interfere with the administration of justice. This judgment clarifies that false statements in affidavits and unauthorized substitutions of authority can attract contempt proceedings.
- Practitioners must ensure that affidavits filed in court are accurate, complete, and comply strictly with judicial directions to avoid contempt or criminal action.
