Supreme Court of India
KISHOR N SHAH VS. URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE TRUSTEES LTD on 27 October 2026
ITEM NO.54 COURT NO.11 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 36900/2026
[Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 29-09-2026 in IA
No. 1144/2021 in Commercial Execution Application No.194/2020
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay]
KISHOR N SHAH & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE TRUSTEES LTD & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION)
Date : 27-10-2026 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Nina R. Nariman, Adv.
Mr. Kunal Vajani, Adv.
Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Adv.
Mr. Rohan Dakshini, Adv.
Ms. Etika Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Devang Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Abhyarthana Singh, Adv.
Ms. Aanchal Maheshwari, Adv.
Mr. Tribhuvan Narain Singh, Adv.
Mr. Keshav Sehgal, Adv.
Ms. Jayam Singh Chauhan, Adv.
Ms. Aasawari Deshmukh, Adv.
Mr. Yashasvee, Adv.
For M/S. Karanjawala & Co.- 1707, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, Adv.
Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Mehta, Adv.
Mr. Shreyash Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Sidharth Nair, Adv.
Mr. Harshit Singh, Adv.
Mr. Yashwant Sanjenbam, Adv.
For M/S. K J John And Co- 1287, AOR
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2026.10.28
19:00:22 IST
Reason:
Signature Not Verified
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
1. Heard Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners.
2. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of our powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The order makes it clear that the Court has stopped short of issuing a warrant and has asked the petitioners to show cause.
3. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
4. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of. (ANITA MALHOTRA) (NIKITA SINGH) DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER