Godrej Slapped with ₹10,000 Crore Defamation Notice — Contempt Petition to Be Filed Soon for Misinformation by Godrej and Sales Executive Madhia Kapadia

Days after a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court restored proceedings to the pre-notice stage in the Wadala redevelopment dispute, Godrej’s alleged circulation of a communication dismissing a judicial fact-check as “misleading and mischievous” has now triggered a ₹10,000 crore legal notice — and a contempt petition is stated to be in the offing

Bombay High Court Record and Documentary Evidence Reveal Pattern of False, Frivolous and Fabricated Claims, Forgery and Fraud by Godrej. — Latest Instance: Misleading Communications to Godrej Horizon Purchasers Post 12 March 2026 Order.

High Court has earlier ordered Criminal Prosecution Against Godrej & Boyce for Committing Forgery, Giving False Evidence, andc playing fraud upon the High Court to Evade Government Revenue Running into Crores of Rupees. [(Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 1992 Cri. L.J. 3752)

Directions issued to the Registrar of the High Court to file the complaint as the complainant. The High Court observed in strong and unequivocal terms in its judgment  that:- If the Court fails to order criminal prosecution against the persons responsible for such fraudulent acts committed by a corporate entity and allows them to go scot-free, future generations will never forgive the judiciary.  (Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 1992 Cri. L.J. 3752)

 The order passed by the Bombay High Court and material proofs placed on record before it now points as a deeply troubling pattern — that Godrej  is   habitual in the making of false, frivolous and fabricated documents, in the commission of forgery, and in playing fraud both upon the court and upon ordinary homebuyers by making systematically misleading claims

Researcher and blogger Ayush Tiwari — a final-year law student and independent legal commentator — has, through Advocate Ishwarlal S. Agarwal, Chairman of the Supreme Court Lawyers Association, served a legal notice dated 16 March 2026 upon M/s. Godrej Projects Development Ltd. and Ms. Madhia Kapadia, Senior Executive – Sales & Marketing, demanding ₹10,000 crore in token damages for alleged defamation, misrepresentation, and deliberate circulation of false and misleading statements to purchasers and members of the public .

1. The aforesaid blog sets out in detail the factual background of the case, the material available on record, and the legal consequences flowing from the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench.
2. The contents of the blog are based on judicial records and publicly available documents forming part of the proceedings before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court which can be easily examined by citizens and members of the concerned Society. It specifically explains how the permissions granted to Godrej were conditional in nature and expressly subject to the final outcome of the proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court, and therefore the continuation of such permissions necessarily stands affected once the Court restored the status quo ante.
3. Despite this clear legal position emerging from the judicial record, Godrej, through one Ms. Madhavi Kapadiya, circulated a message to purchasers and prospective buyers stating that there is no impediment in purchasing flats in the project named and styled as “Godrej Horizon.”
4. The said message appears to have been deliberately circulated with the intention of creating an impression before the public and prospective purchasers that the project is legally secure and that purchasers need not have any concern regarding the legality of the development or the rights claimed by the developer.
5. The communication further attempts to discredit the fact-check article by branding it as misleading and mischievous, and seeks to portray the ongoing legal dispute as being unrelated to the project. By doing so, the message attempts to downplay the significance of the judicial proceedings and the orders passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, thereby creating a false sense of security among prospective purchasers regarding the legal status of the project.
6. The message circulated by Ms. Madhavi Kapadiya reads as under:

“Dear Customer,

We wish to bring to your attention that the online article shared by you contains misleading, factually incorrect, and mischievous statements intended to create confusion and unnecessarily alarm our customers of the project named and styled as Godrej Horizon. We urge you to exercise caution and not rely on such misinformation.

To clarify with complete transparency, the project land belongs to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). The earlier developer, East & West Developers, was terminated by both MCGM and Shree Azad Nagar Society (Society) in 2020 pursuant to orders of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Following this, Godrej Projects Development Ltd. (GPDL) was duly appointed as the developer after due process and the execution of registered agreements. These agreements remain unchallenged and valid, and therefore, there is no dispute or impediment whatsoever concerning the development rights of GPDL.

The disputes referred to in the article relate entirely to issues between the Society and East & West Developers concerning transit rent commitments made by East & West Developers which remain pending for a period of 15 years. These matters have no connection with the ongoing development by GPDL, and no orders have been passed that impact the project, its construction, or the development rights of GPDL, contrary to what the article falsely suggests.

We assure that there exist no impediments to the project. We reaffirm our complete commitment to progressing the project smoothly and delivering your homes as planned. Your trust and support are extremely valuable to us.

Should you have any queries or require further clarification, we are always available to assist you.”

7. The above statement is misleading and contrary to the judicial record. The disputes and proceedings before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court are not confined merely to the issue of transit rent, as falsely suggested in the said communication. On the contrary, the proceedings directly concern the legality and validity of the termination of East & West Developers, which was effected on the basis of orders passed by the Learned Single Judge, as well as the consequential actions taken thereafter, including the grant of development permissions to Godrej.
8. Consequently, the assertion that the disputes have no connection with the ongoing development of the project or the development rights claimed by Godrej is factually incorrect, misleading, and legally unsustainable. Such a statement suppresses the true nature of the judicial proceedings and creates a false impression before purchasers and members of the public regarding the legal status of the project.
9. However, the falsity and dishonesty of the said statement by said Madhavi Kapadiya are ex facie apparent from the record itself.
10. Conditional Nature of Godrej’s Permissions :-
    • The permission granted to Godrej Properties Limited to undertake development of the project was granted on 11.2020 by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai through Sh. S. S. Tandle, Assistant Engineer (IMP)-II. Significantly, the said permission was not absolute, unconditional, or final in nature. On the contrary, the permission was expressly conditional, and it was clearly made subject to the outcome and final orders to be passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the pending proceedings arising out of disputes relating to the redevelopment project.
    • Therefore, the entry of Godrej into the project was inherently provisional and contingent upon the final adjudication by the Hon’ble High Court. In other words, Godrej proceeded with the development entirely at its own risk during the pendency of the litigation.  
    • Legal Consequence for Purchasers :- The legal position in this regard is well settled. Persons who purchase property during the pendency of litigation relating to the property cannot claim the status of bona fide purchasers, particularly when the existence of litigation and conditional permissions are matters of public record.
    • The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chinnammal v. P. Arumugham, (1990) 1 SCC 513 has clearly laid down the law as under.  

“11(…) But if it is shown by evidence that he was aware of the pending appeal against the decree when he purchased the property, it would be inappropriate to term him as a bona fide purchaser. In such a case the court also cannot assume that he was a bona fide or innocent purchaser for giving him protection against restitution. No assumption could be made contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and any such assumption would be wrong and uncalled for.

17. It is well to remember that the Code of Civil Procedure is a body of procedural law designed to facilitate justice and it should not be treated as an enactment providing for punishmentss and penalties. The laws of procedure should be so construed as to render justice wherever reasonably possible. It is in our opinion, not unreasonable to demand restitution from a person who has purchased the property in court auction being aware of the pending appeal against the decree.”

•  Application of the Above Law to the Present Case . –  Applying the above principle to the present case:
• The dispute concerning the redevelopment project has been sub judice before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court for several years.
• The permissions granted to Godrej were expressly conditional and subject to the outcome of the litigation.
• The existence of litigation and the conditional nature of permissions were well known and part of the public record.

11. Therefore: Persons purchasing flats in the project cannot claim to be bona fide purchasers, and any investment made by them is subject to the final outcome of the judicial proceedings. 
12. Consequently, any representations made to purchasers suggesting that there is no legal impediment or risk in purchasing flats in the said project are misleading and contrary to the record.
13. Misrepresentation to Purchasers :-
    • In spite of the above legal position, the message circulated by Madhavi Kapadiya on behalf of Godrej falsely assures purchasers that there is no impediment whatsoever in purchasing flats in the project.
    • Such a representation:

• Suppresses the conditional nature of the development permissions, Conceals the pendency of litigation and the legal consequences flowing from the High Court orders, and
• Creates a false impression of complete legal certainty in order to induce purchasers to invest money in the project.
  • Such conduct prima facie amounts to: Misrepresentation, Suppression of material facts, and Inducement of purchasers to part with money on the basis of misleading statements.

14. Godrej’s so-called “adventure” has now turned into a serious legal misadventure, as the company has been slapped with a massive ₹10,000 crore defamation notice and now faces the looming prospect of contempt proceedings for its alleged conduct.
15. Godrej’s Dishonesty, Sophistry and Strawman Defence Ex Facie Exposed :- Godrej has no tenable defence, as its version stands conclusively falsified by its own documents. Its claim that there is no nexus between the High Court proceedings and its permissions is ex facie false and constitutes a classic strawman argument, deliberately crafted to mislead. The BMC permission dated 05.11.2020 itself unequivocally records that such permission is subject to the outcome of court proceedings, thereby demolishing Godrej’s stand on its own terms. This position is further reinforced by the official records of the case, which consistently reflect the subsistence and binding nature of judicial proceedings. In these circumstances, Godrej’s conduct reveals clear dishonesty and sophistry, leaving no scope whatsoever for any credible, bona fide, or sustainable defence.