Disposed

Sindhu Mangesh Chogle and Ors. v. Devdatrta Manohar Chogle and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Apr 2005AO/354/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court settled the dispute between the appellants (original plaintiffs) and respondents. The appeal and suit were disposed of upon recording of consent terms with specific amendments regarding stamp duty, Police Commissioner's claim, and construction period.

What did the court decide?

Consent terms accepted with modifications on stamp duty, Police Commissioner claim, and construction timeline. Appeal and suit disposed of.

Sindhu Mangesh Chogle and Ors. Vs Devdatrta… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

:1:

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 354 OF 2005

¶5

IN

¶6

 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 5159 OF 2004

¶7

IN

¶8

 SUIT NO. 5582 OF 2004

¶9

 Sindhu Mangesh Chogle & Ors ..Appellants

¶10

 versus

¶11

 Devdatta Manohar Chogle & Ors. ..Respondents

¶12

 Mr. H. S. S. Murthy i/b. M/s. Shukla & Shukla for
 the Appellants.

¶13

 Mr. Navin Parekh i/b. Miss. Hetal Patel for the
 Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶14

 Mr. D. A. Siddiqui with Mr. J. R. Khan for the
 Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

¶15

 CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE,J.

¶16

 DATE : 20TH APRIL,2005

¶17

ORAL ORDER :

¶18

 1. This appeal is filed by the original

¶19

 plaintiffs. They have now given consent terms duly
 signed by the plaintiffs, copy of the consent terms
 was also given to the respondents Advocates.
 Respondents are present in court they state that

¶20

:2:

¶21

 they had gone through the consent terms and they

¶22

 accept the same, subject to the following
 amendments / modifications :

¶23

 . 1. There is a reference to stamp duty
 registration charges in clause 1 of the consent
 terms, this shall be borne by the appellants.

¶24

 . 2. So far as the claim of the Police
 Commissioner in the suit property, about which there
 was a prayer in the original plaint the appellants
 to take upon themselves the entire responsibility of
 satisfying the claim of the Police Commissioner and
 they give undertaking in that regard to the court
 and the Respondents will not be liable or
 accountable to any claim of Police Commissioner.

¶25

 . 3. Period for construction as per clause 4,
 shall be 18 months from the date of commencement.

¶26

 Intimation of which shall be given by the
 respondents to the appellants, in writing.

¶27

 Mr. Murthy for the appellants, and the appellants
 who are present in court and/or represented by the

¶28

 counsel, as well as respondents who are present in
 court, and/or represented by the counsel have gone
 through the consent terms and they are agreeable to
 the consent terms with these amendments /

¶29

:3:

¶30

 modifications. Consent terms taken on record and
 marked Exhibit ’X’ for identification. The consent

¶31

 terms bears the signature of Appellants only.

¶32

 2. There shall be an order in terms of the

¶33

 consent terms with the aforesaid modifications.

¶34

 3. Undertakings of both the parties to abide by

¶35

 consent terms are accepted.

¶36

 4. Consequently appeal as well as suit stands

¶37

 disposed of.

¶38

 20.04.2005 (D.G. DESHPANDE, J.)

Sindhu Mangesh Chogle and Ors. v. Devdatrta Manohar Chogle and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sindhu Mangesh Chogle and Ors. v. Devdatrta Manohar Chogle and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shri Subhash Anant Shetye

Kiran Jaykumar Patil. Vs Bapu Bala Patil and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mrs.Barkibai B.Bhagat and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Biru Syapa Sargar and Ors.

Ganapati Sitaram Satpute and Ors. Vs Shri Dattaram Sitaram Satpute and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Biru Syapa Sargar and Ors.