Top News

Supreme Court On L&T Pali Hill Property Case: The country’s leading engineering company Larsen & Toubro (L&T) has faced a major legal defeat regarding a prime residential property located in Pali Hill, Bandra, one of the most posh areas of Mumbai. The Supreme Court has rejected the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the company, ending the decades-long legal battle over the prized bungalow ‘High Trees’.

This matter is also in discussion because in this bungalow the former chairman of L&T and current chairman emeritus A.M. Naik had been resident for more than two decades. The company had claimed in the court that it owns about 30% stake of this property, hence it should get the possession of this heritage bungalow.

It is known that this bungalow is one of the few heritage properties still present in the posh residential area of ​​Pali Hill. With this decision of the Supreme Court, the order of the Bombay High Court will remain intact.

The lease agreement ended in 1970

Actually, this fight started in the year 1970 when the formal lease agreement of this house ended. The homeowners group, which includes K.C. Members of the Kothari family and other co-owners were involved. After terminating the tenancy, he initiated eviction proceedings in the Small Causes Court of Bandra in 2001. During the litigation, in 2001, L&T Company purchased 7% undivided share in the property from Amar Munot (now deceased).

Who was one of the co-owners of the property. After this his stake increased to 29.5%. On this basis, citing a 2017 Supreme Court decision (Mangal Builders), the company argued that it had become a co-owner of the property.

Bombay High Court had already given its decision

That is why eviction proceedings cannot be continued against him. Further, the company also argued that a lawsuit for partition of the property among all the co-owners, including L&T, is still pending. At the same time, in his judgment given on March 27, 2026, Bombay High Court Judge MM Sathaye rejected this argument. He said the objections of the co-owner, who sold his 7% stake to L&T during the eviction suit, appear to be motivated by some ulterior motive. That is why they cannot have any adverse effect on the validity of the case. The High Court held that there was no mistake in the eviction order of L&T given by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court in 2010.

Court rejected the company’s petition

The Bombay High Court further held that the objection of one co-owner, especially when it is made with a view to benefit a tenant, cannot take away the eviction rights of the other co-owners. Therefore the court rejected the company’s petition. However, the court had stayed this order for six weeks to give the company a chance to appeal in the Supreme Court. After this, L&T filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court to appeal against this decision of the High Court.

During the preliminary hearing held on April 27, the Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Prashant Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjariya were included. He said that we are not willing to hear these special leave petitions. Therefore, all these special leave petitions are dismissed.