This is a brief notice of motion disposed of where ad interim relief under prayer clause (a) was maintained due to lack of defendant reply, whereas prayer clause (b) for a Court Receiver was dismissed for lack of grounds.
Motion made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a); prayer clause (b) dismissed for lack of grounds.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.860 OF 2003
IN
SUIT NO.2212 OF 2002
Manoj Vashu Mulchandani .. Plaintiff
versus
Suryakant H.Mehta & anr .. Defendants
Mr. K.D.Shukla for Plaintiff.
CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J
DATED : 10th March 2005.
P.C:-
1. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff. None
present for the defendants. In view of the fact that
ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) has
already been granted, I see no reason to vacate the
said relief in the absence of any affidavit in reply
of the defendants.
2. As regards prayer clause (b) no grounds are made
2
out for appointment of a Court Receiver. Hence,
relief in terms of prayer clause (b) cannot be
granted. Hence, I pass following order :
" Motion is made absolute in terms ofprayer
clause (a). Motion is disposed of."
D.G.KARNIK, J
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Manoj Vashu Mulchandani
Suryakant H.Mehta
D.G. KARNIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court