In a recent decision on March 4, 2026, the Bombay High Court, led by Justice Milind N. Jadhav, decided in favor of Pankh Properties Private Limited in their case against Rusi Sorabji Khambatta. The court supported Pankh Properties' request and turned down Khambatta's opposing claim.
This case is about a property in Dadar-Matunga, Mumbai. On November 20, 2012, Rusi Sorabji Khambatta transferred his rights to this property to Pankh Properties through a legal agreement, receiving Rs. 12 Crores in exchange. The deal included a permanent power of attorney, with Khambatta giving over control and recognizing tenants under Pankh Properties.
On June 11, 2025, Khambatta tried to cancel the agreement, claiming breaches related to redevelopment plans and city permissions. He argued that the agreement was invalid because it didn't comply with city rules and accused Pankh Properties of working secretly with a tenant, Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck.
"Khambatta's notice to cancel the agreement came 13 years later, which the court found to be without merit," said Justice Jadhav.
Justice Jadhav found the agreement to be complete and unconditional, rejecting claims that it depended on redevelopment conditions. The court pointed out that the extra agreement for future redevelopment was separate and not mandatory.
Khambatta claimed the agreement was invalid because of missing city permissions. However, the court decided that getting these permissions was Khambatta's responsibility and that the agreement could be fixed by paying fines, not canceled.
Khambatta's claim of secret dealings with tenant Kavasmaneck was also rejected. The court clarified that eviction matters had been given to Pankh Properties, leaving Khambatta with no more rights.
The court provided temporary relief to Pankh Properties, stopping Khambatta from acting on the cancellation notice and keeping Pankh's rights as the property's owner.
"After benefiting for over 12 years, Khambatta cannot cancel the agreement on his own," the judgment stressed.
The court's decision ensures that Pankh Properties remains the rightful owner of the property, and Khambatta cannot cancel the agreement after benefiting from it for many years.
