Dismissed

Subhash Laxman Khetade and Anr. v. Gangadhar Nivrutti Kathe and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Mar 2006CAF/1423/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed an application filed by Ms Smita Mane. The court held that since the trial court rejected the prayer for specific performance, the respondents were entitled to withdraw their deposited amount, making any order restricting such withdrawal unnecessary. The application was accordingly rejected.

What did the court decide?

Application for restraining respondents from withdrawing the deposited amount of Rs.12,48,750/- was rejected.

Subhash Laxman Khetade and Anr. Vs Gangadhar Nivrutti… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

 - 1 -

¶2

 (G.C.P.)J 455 (5,00,000)-11.2001) Spl-H.C.,A.S.,C.D.,78e

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 APPELLATE SIDE
 Civil Application No.1423 of 2006
 In
 First Appeal St.No.904 of 2006

¶4

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders
 of Coram, appearances, Court’s
 order or directions and
 Registrar’s order.

¶5

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Ms Smita Mane i/b Shri P.B.Shah for the
 applicants.

¶6

 Shri M.M.Sathaye for the respondents.

¶7

 CORAM: R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR
 &
 SMT.R.S.DALVI, JJ
 DATED: 21ST MARCH, 2006.
 P.C.

¶8

 . Undisputedly, the amount of
 Rs.12,48,750/- was deposited by the
 respondents for seeking specific performance
 of the agreement between the parties. The
 trial Court has rejected the prayer for
 specific performance. Obviously, the
 respondents, who had deposited their money
 to show bonafides on their part for
 execution of the agreement, would be
 entitled for withdrawal of the said amount,
 and therefore, the question of restraining

¶9

 - 2 -

¶10

 them from withdrawing the said amount does

¶11

 not arise at all. Hence, the relief in the

¶12

 nature of prayer clause (b) cannot be

¶13

 granted. The application accordingly is

¶14

 rejected.

¶15

 (R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J )

¶16

 (SMT.R.S.DALVI, J )

Subhash Laxman Khetade and Anr. v. Gangadhar Nivrutti Kathe and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Laxman Khetade and Anr. v. Gangadhar Nivrutti Kathe 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

Smt. Mrilini S.Ujagare Vs the Nashik Peoples Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Laxman Keshavrao Vichare Vs Kamal Laxman Vichare

Mushir Khan Amir Khan and Anr. Vs Smt.Khairunnissa Bukhari and Ors.

Pandurang @ Tushar Dhondu Tatkare Vs Pooja @ Poona Pandurang Tatkare and Anr.

Milkha Singh Bedi Vs Kawaljeet Kaur Milkha Bedi

Shehnaz Arvind Mudbhatkal Vs Dr. Arvind Ramkrishna Mudbhatkal