Dismissed

M/S Gautam Builders and Anr. v. Mr Ranchod Kanji Dhodi (Since Dec) and Smt Rama Ranchod Dhodi and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Nov 2005APP/958/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single appellant filed an appeal against an ad-interim order denying specific performance due to bogusness of the agreement. The High Court dismissed the appeal in limine without interferancing with the impugned order, rejecting the oral prayer for stay.

What did the court decide?

Oral prayer for stay is rejected. Appeal is dismissed in limine.

M/S Gautam Builders and Anr. Vs Mr Ranchod Kanji Dhodi… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J.

¶3

APPEAL NO.958 OF 2005 IN

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3489 OF 1996 IN SUIT NO.4067 OF 1996

¶5

M/s.Gautam Builders & anr.

¶6

.. Appellants

¶7

v/s.

¶8

Mr.Ranchod Kanji Dhodi (since deceased)

¶9

1a. Smt.Rama Ranchod Dhodi & ors. .. Respondents

¶10

Mr.Sanjay Jain i/by M/s.Pillai Anand & Co.for the appellants.

¶11

Mr.R.D.Soni for the respondents.

¶12

CORAM : R.M.LODHA AND D.G.KARNIK, JJ.

¶13

DATED : 24th November, 2005

¶14

P.C.

¶15

Heard Mr.Sanjay Jain, the learned counsel

¶16

for the appellant.

¶17

2.	The le	arned motion	Judge	at the ad-interim
stage	recorded	the prima	facie	finding that the
agreement	dated	16.2.1982	of	which specific
performance	is	sought	by	the appellants-
plaintiffs	is bogu	s document.		We asked the
learned	counsel	for the a	ppellants	to show us the
original	document.	The	learned	counsel for the
appellants	submitted	that if		some time was

¶18

granted, he would produce the same. The request

¶19

is not bonafide and designed to gain time.

¶20

¶21

3.	In	this back	drop,	we	find		no	justifiable
ground	to	take the	view	diff	erent	from	the	view
taken	by	the learned	Sin	gle	Judge.		Besides	that,
the	learne	d motion	Judge	has	ri	ghtly	noticed	that
though	the	consideration	as	per	the		said	agreement
is	Rs.12,50	,000/- but			so		far	the

¶22

appellants-plaintiffs have made payment of

¶23

Rs.5,26,000/- only.

¶24

We do not intend to deal with the aspects at
length since the notice of motion is pending and
any observation made by us may affect the fair
consideration of the notice of motion on merits.

¶25

However, no interference is called for in the

¶26

impugned order. Appeal is dismissed in limine.

¶27

Oral prayer for stay is rejected.

¶28

(R.M.LODHA, J.)

¶29

(D.G. KARNIK, J.)

M/S Gautam Builders and Anr. v. Mr Ranchod Kanji Dhodi (Since Dec) and Smt Rama Ranchod Dhodi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Gautam Builders and Anr. v. Mr Ranchod Kanji Dhodi (Since Dec) and Smt Rama Ranchod Dhodi and Ors.

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

Namoomal Issardas Santani. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mathuradas Girdhardas Kapadia and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Saroj Mahadik Vs State of Mah.and Anr.

Shital S. Pathak Vs the Sind Brahma Sikhya Sammelam Soc. and 2 Ors.

Ansari Mohd. Tahir Mohd. Sadique Vs B. E. S. T.

Depak Kochar Vs Suraj Sanghi Finance Ltd. Credential Finance Ltd. and Anr.