Disposed

Vasanty Shetty and Anr. v. Mrs. Sunanda Sanjeeva Sheety and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jul 2005NMS/2824/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay disposed of two pending Notice of Motions in a suit for administration of deceased's estate. Recognizing an agreement between parties regarding asset claims and maintenance, the court ordered defendants to pay monthly maintenance, present bank funds for investment, and provide notice before selling the hotel property.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs.20,000/month maintenance; Defendants to pay Rs.3 lakh from bank policy proceeds within four weeks for investment in FD; Defendants to give four weeks notice before selling hotel.

Vasanty Shetty and Anr. Vs Mrs. Sunanda Sanjeeva Sheety… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 ((-1-))

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2824 OF 2001

¶4

IN

¶5

 SUIT NO.2611 OF 2000

¶6

 Vasanthy Shetty and another Plaintiffs

¶7

 versus

¶8

 Sanjeeva Nandu Shetty and others Defendants

¶9

 ALONG WITH

¶10

 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3073 OF 2003
 IN

¶11

 SUIT NO.2611 OF 2000

¶12

 Vasanthy Shetty and another Plaintiffs

¶13

 versus

¶14

 Sanjeeva Nandu Shetty and others Defendants

¶15

 Ms.Sheetal Kumar i/by M.M.Patel & Co. for
 plaintiffs.

¶16

 Mr.G.B.Kedia for defendants.

¶17

 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶18

 DATE : 8th July 2005

¶19

 PC :

¶20

 1. These Notice of Motions were heard together

¶21

 and are being disposed off by a common order.

¶22

 2. The first Notice of Motion is taken out in a

¶23

 ((-2-))

¶24

 suit which is instituted for administration of

¶25

 the estate of the deceased consequent upon a
 declaration that the plaintiffs are the heirs and
 legal representatives and have 1/3rd share in the
 same. The deceased Premnath Shetty is the
 husband of first plaintiff and the father of
 second plaintiff. The suit is filed by them
 against mother in law and brother in law as well
 as other relations. The Notice of Motion is
 taken out for appropriate interlocutory reliefs
 to preserve and protect the estate. The second
 Notice of Motion seeks appointment of Court
 Receiver of the estate of the deceased.

¶26

 3. Both motions were pending and the plaintiff
 was unable to get any ad-interim reliefs therein.
 Parties have exchanged affidavits. The stand
 taken by the contesting defendants, on
 affidavits, is that some of the assets disclosed
 at Exhibit-F (sr.nos.1 to 4) do not belong to the
 estate of the deceased. Insofar as a residential
 flat is concerned, it is contended by the
 contesting defendants that the said flat is sold
 by defendant no.1 during his life time. Insofar
 as Exhibit-B (articles of jewellery etc.) is
 concerned, it is stated that they are not in
 possession of defendant no.2 or any of the

¶27

 ((-3-))

¶28

 defendants. These facts are controverted by the
 plaintiff and she does not admit that the
 aforesaid items do not belong to the deceased or
 that the deceased does not have any share
 therein. However, both sides agree to the
 following arrangement during pendency of the
 suit. Counsel further agree that the Notice of
 Motions can be disposed off in terms of this
 arrangement.

¶29

 4. Defendants 2 and 3 shall pay to the plaintiff
 no.1 a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month towards
 maintenance of herself and the minor child. The
 first such payment shall be made on 10th August
 2005 and all subsequent payments would be made on
 10th of each succeeding month. The amounts shall
 be paid till hearing and final disposal of the
 suit. The amount shall be paid by demand
 draft/pay order drawn in the name of first
 plaintiff. First plaintiff shall deposit the
 amount in her account and inform defendants about
 details thereof. She should also forward extract
 of the said account periodically (every six
 months) to the defendants or their advocate.
 Insofar as the property namely a residential
 hotel "The Nest" is concerned, defendants
 undertake that presently the said hotel business

¶30

 ((-4-))

¶31

 is conducted, managed and administered by them
 and as and when they intend to sell or dispose
 off the same, they will give four weeks prior
 notice to the plaintiff or her advocate.

¶32

 5. The defendants shall pay to the plaintiffs
 within a four weeks from today a sum of Rs.3.00
 lakh (Rs.Three lakh only) lying in Bharat
 Co-operative Bank Ltd. together with interest
 thereon. These monies are in respect of
 Insurance Policy No.917138336. Said policy was
 in the name of deceased. Plaintiff no.1 upon
 receipt of this amount, shall invest the same in
 a fixed deposit preferably in a nationalised bank
 initially for a period of three years to be
 renewed subject to further directions of this
 Court. However, it would be open for plaintiff
 no.1 to apply to this Court for pre-mature
 encashment or withdrawal of the same and that
 application would be dealt with appropriately.
 In case of any default in payment of monthly
 amount or in respect of sum of Rs.3.00 lakh, it
 would be open for the plaintiff to apply for
 appropriate reliefs and disposal of Notice of
 Motions would not constitute a bar in initiation
 or prosecution of the same. This order is
 without prejudice to the rights and contentions

¶33

 ((-5-))

¶34

 of both sides. No order as to costs.

¶35

 (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Vasanty Shetty and Anr. v. Mrs. Sunanda Sanjeeva Sheety and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasanty Shetty and Anr. v. Mrs. Sunanda Sanjeeva Sheety and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Noel Basil David Vs Sushma Sudhakar Phatak and Anr.

Comfil Industries Vs the Niphad Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Ltd.

Mrs. Rupal R.Shroff Prop. of Chandra Enterprises Vs Collins and Company and Ors. .

M/S Rajtaru Videosonic Ltd.Shri Ramesh Agarwal Vs Gaurang v.Doshi and Anr.

Chotalal Hariram Trust and Anr. Vs Kutchi House Co-Op Hsg. Soc.Ltd. and Ors.

Bank of India Vs Dinesh K. Wagh and Anr.