Disposed

Ramila B.Dekhtawala v. Navinchandra K.Rokadia and Ors. and Indian Bank

Bombay HC12 Aug 2004NMS/3660/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a suit challenging a memorandum of understanding regarding immovable properties, the Plaintiffs sought a Court Receiver and injunction against Defendants and the Bank. The Court held that a Receiver was unnecessary; instead, it granted a temporary injunction restraining Defendants from disposing of properties or disturbing joint possession, clarifying this did not impede the Bank's recovery exe

What did the court decide?

Defendants restrained via temporary injunction from disturbing joint possession of Flat No. 74 and disposing of properties during suit pendency; Bank permitted to execute recovery; prior Receiver appo

	IN THE H	IGH CO	URT OF JUDICATURE AT	BOMBAY
	ORDINARY		ORIGINAL CIVIL	JURISDICTION
	NOTICE	OF	MOTION NO.1870	OF 2003
			WITH
	NOTICE	OF	MOTION NO.3660	OF 2003
			IN
		SUIT	NO.1917 OF	2003
Pramila		B.	Dekhtawala	nee
Pramila	K. Rokadia v/s		... Plaintiff
Navinc	handra K. Rokadia and ors And	.	... Defendants
Indian	Bank		... Applicants
Mr	Jain i/b	M/s	Legal Juris fo	r Plaintiff.
Mr	Yogesh	Deshpande	for Defendant	No.1.
Mr	Rajesh	Singh	for Defendant	No.2.
Mr	Ajay	Seth	for Defendant	No.3.
Mr	Sangram Yadav	i/b Mr	C. Naik for Defendant	Nos.4 to
7.
Ms	Mohana Nair	i/b M/s	Mohana Nair and A	ssociates for
Applica	nts in	N/M	No.3660 of	2003.

IN
THE
H

IGH
CO

URT
OF
JUDICATURE
AT

BOMBAY

ORDINARY

ORIGINAL
CIVIL

JURISDICTION

NOTICE

MOTION
NO.1870

OF
2003

WITH

NOTICE

MOTION
NO.3660

OF
2003

SUIT

NO.1917
OF

2003

Pramila

Dekhtawala

nee

Pramila

K. Rokadia
v/s

... Plaintiff

Navinc

handra K. Rokadia and ors
And

... Defendants

Indian

Bank

... Applicants

Jain
i/b

M/s

Legal
Juris
fo

r
Plaintiff.

Yogesh

Deshpande

for
Defendant

No.1.

Rajesh

Singh

for
Defendant

No.2.

Ajay

Seth

for
Defendant

No.3.

Sangram
Yadav

i/b
Mr

C.
Naik
for
Defendant

Nos.4
to

Mohana
Nair

i/b
M/s

Mohana
Nair
and
A

ssociates
for

Applica

nts
in

N/M

No.3660
of

2003.

P.C.:		-
1. Notice of motion No.1870 of 2003 is taken out
by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed	this	suit
challenging the validity of the	memorandum	of
understanding entered into between defendant	Nos.1,	2
and 3 in relation to certain immovable	properties.	the
case of the plaintiff is that the proper	ties are	left
behind by her mother, she has share in	the	properties
and that the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 who	are	brothers
of the plaintiff cannot appropriate the	properties	to
themselves. The plaintiff has sought	relief	of
appointment of Court Receiver as also the	relief	of
temporary injunction on the allegation	that	the
defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 are likely to	transfer	the
properties. According to the plaintiff,	she	is
occupying one of the properties alongwith	the	defendant
No.3. None of the defendants have filed	any	reply.
Therefore, in the absence of any denial of	the	averments
made in the plaint and the affidavit filed	in supp	ort of
the motion and assuming that the plaintiff	has sh	are in

P.C.:

1.
Notice of motion No.1870 of 2003 is taken out

by
the
plaintiff.
The
plaintiff
has
filed

this

suit

challenging
the
validity
of
the

memorandum

understanding
entered
into
between
defendant

Nos.1,

and
3
in
relation
to
certain
immovable

properties.

the

case
of
the
plaintiff
is
that
the
proper

ties
are

left

behind
by
her
mother,
she
has
share
in

the

properties

and
that
the
defendant
Nos.1,
2
and
3
who

are

brothers

of
the
plaintiff
cannot
appropriate
the

properties

themselves.
The
plaintiff
has
sought

relief

appointment
of
Court
Receiver
as
also
the

relief

temporary
injunction
on
the
allegation

that

the

defendant
Nos.1,
2
and
3
are
likely
to

transfer

the

properties.
According
to
the
plaintiff,

she

occupying
one
of
the
properties
alongwith

the

defendant

No.3.
None
of
the
defendants
have
filed

any

reply.

Therefore,
in
the
absence
of
any
denial
of

the

averments

made
in
the
plaint
and
the
affidavit
filed

in
supp

ort
of

the
motion
and
assuming
that
the
plaintiff

has
sh

are
in

the	propert	ies, in my opinion, it is not	necessary	to
appoint	Court	Receiver on the -properties.	The	interest
of	the	plaintiff can be safeguarded by res	training	the
defendant	Nos.	1, 2 and 3 from selling the	propertie	s and
also	re	straining them from disturbing joint		possession
of	the	plaintiff of one of the flats with	the	defendant
No.3.		It appears from prayer clause (b) of	the	plaint
that	the	real intention of the plaintiff i	s to	restrain
the	Bank	from proceeding against the properties	of	the
defendant	No	s.1, 2 and 3 against whom the	Bank	has
recovery	c	ertificates. I also find substance	in	the
contention		of the Indian Bank that this	plaintiff	has
been put	up	by the defendant Nos.1, 2 and	3 to	frustrate
the	sale	of the properties by the Bank.	Taking	overall

the

propert

ies,
in
my
opinion,
it
is
not

necessary

appoint

Court

Receiver
on
the
-properties.

The

interest

the

plaintiff
can
be
safeguarded
by
res

training

the

defendant

Nos.

1,
2
and
3
from
selling
the

propertie

s
and

also

straining
them
from
disturbing
joint

possession

the

plaintiff
of
one
of
the
flats
with

the

defendant

No.3.

It
appears
from
prayer
clause
(b)
of

the

plaint

that

the

real
intention
of
the
plaintiff
i

s
to

restrain

the

Bank

from
proceeding
against
the
properties

the

defendant

s.1,
2
and
3
against
whom
the

Bank

has

recovery

ertificates.
I
also
find
substance

the

contention

of
the
Indian
Bank
that
this

plaintiff

has

been
put

by
the
defendant
Nos.1,
2
and

3
to

frustrate

the

sale

of
the
properties
by
the
Bank.

Taking

overall

2.		The defe	ndant Nos.1, 2 and 3	are re	strained by
a	tempor	ary order	of injuncti	on	from	distur	bing	joint
possession		of the	plaintiff of	one	of	the	flats	being
Flat	No.74,	Rajat Apa	rtment, Malabar		Hill,	Mumb	ai.	They
are	also	restrained	from dispos	ing	of	the		properties
described		in Exh.’A’	of the pl	aint	during	the		pendency
of	the	suit.	It is further	c	larified	that	this	order
will	not	come in	the way of	the	Ban	k	executing	its
recovery		certificates	against the	de	fendants.		The	Bank

The defe

ndant Nos.1, 2 and 3

are re

strained by

tempor

ary
order

of
injuncti

from

distur

bing

joint

possession

of
the

plaintiff
of

one

the

flats

being

Flat

No.74,

Rajat
Apa

rtment,
Malabar

Hill,

Mumb

ai.

They

are

also

restrained

from
dispos

ing

the

properties

described

in
Exh.’A’

of
the
pl

aint

during

the

pendency

the

suit.

It
is
further

larified

that

this

order

will

not

come
in

the
way
of

the

Ban

executing

its

recovery

certificates

against
the

fendants.

The

Bank

is free	to	sell	the	propertie	s in	execut	ion of		the
decree pas	sed by	the	Debt	Rec	overy	Tribunal.	So	far	as
notice of	motion		No.3660	of	2003	is	concerned,		the
ad-interim	order	gra	nted	by	this	Court	appointing		Court

is
free

sell

the

propertie

s
in

execut

ion
of

the

decree
pas

sed
by

the

Debt

Rec

overy

Tribunal.

far

notice
of

motion

No.3660

2003

concerned,

the

ad-interim

order

gra

nted

this

Court

appointing

Court

Ramila B.Dekhtawala v. Navinchandra K.Rokadia and Ors. and Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramila B.Dekhtawala v. Navinchandra K.Rokadia and Ors. and Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suman R. Walawalkar and Ors. Vs Vasant B. Walawalkar

Shri a.S.Nanjunda Shetty Vs Tata Finance Ltd. and Anr.

Paaterson and Co. P.Ltd. Vs Indusind Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Shantanu N.Desai Vs Dushyant @ Kishore Nanubhai Desai Ors.

Domnic Francis Pereira Vs Joseph Paul Pereia and Ors.

M/S. Ashish Estate and Prop Erties Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Shree Anandeya Inves Tments Ltd.