Disposed

Padmini Digambar More v. Sangeeta Sharad More and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Aug 2006CAF/1480/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay restrained the first respondent from encashing specific Kisan Vikas Patras and directed deposit of the instruments with the Registrar (Judicial I) pending the final disposal of the Civil Application regarding share entitlement in funds received.

What did the court decide?

Restrained respondent from encashing specified Kisan Vikas Patras; directed deposit of original instruments with Registrar (Judicial I).

Padmini Digambar More Vs Sangeeta Sharad More and Anr. — Money Laundering | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

... 1 ...

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1480 OF 2006 IN

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO.406 OF 2006

¶5

Mrs Padmini Digambar More Vs. Smt Sangeeta Sharad More & Ors.

¶6

...Applicant

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Shri Salunke i/by Shri P.B. Shah for the Applicant.

¶9

CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : AUGUST 02, 2006.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

Rule. The Advocate for the Respondents waive service. Taken up for hearing forthwith. The First Appeal is admitted for final hearing. The first Respondent appears to have received a sum of Rs.8 lakhs from the Central Government and a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs from the State Government. Prima facie the Applicant has no share in the amount which is received by the first Respondent from the State Government. In so far as the amount received from the Central Government is concerned, there is some material on record to show that the Applicant and her husband will be entitled to 40% share. Therefore, the Applicant’s

¶12

share will be Rs.2 lakhs which will have to be secured

¶13

till final disposal of the Appeal.

¶14

... 2 ...

¶15

It is not in dispute that the first Respondent

¶16

has	inves	ted a	sum	of	Rs.5	l	akhs in		Kisan	Vikas	Patra.
A	sum	of	Rs.1	lakh	has	b	een inve	sted	in	ten	Kisan
Vikas		Patras	bearing	No.4	8	CC	985910	to		985919	and
other		sum	of R	s.1 la	kh	has	been	inve	sted	in	Kisan
Vikas		Patras	bearing		Nos.8	7CC	98	5920		and	985929.
Interests		of	justice	w	ill	be	served		if	the	first
Respond	ent	is	restrained	fr	om		encashing		the	said	Kisan
Vikas		Patras	without	pr	ior	p	ermission	o	f	this	court.
To		ensure	that the	orde	r	is	complie	d	with,	the	first
Respond	ent	will	deposit	the		said	20	K	isan	Vikas	Patras
with	the	Regis	trar (Jud	icial	I)	o	f this		Court.	A	t the
time		of	maturity	both	th	e	parties	are	at	liberty	to

¶17

move this court for further investment of the amounts

¶18

covered by the Kisan Vikas Patras.

¶19

Hence, Civil Application is disposed of by

¶20

passing following order:

¶21

(i) Till the final disposal of the Appeal the first Respondent is restrained from encashing Kisan Vikas Patras bearing Nos.48 CC 985910 to 985919

¶22

and 87CC 985920 and 985929.

¶23

... 3 ...

¶24

(ii) Within period of three weeks from today the first Respondent will deposit the said Kisan Vikas Patras in original with the Registrar (Judicial I) of this Court for safe custody. (iii) Both the parties are free to apply to this court for investment of the amount covered by the said Kisan Vikas Patras after the date of maturity. (iv) It is clarified that all further actions of the first Respondent will be subject to final outcome of the Appeal. (v) There will be no orders as to costs.

¶25

JUDGE

Padmini Digambar More v. Sangeeta Sharad More and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padmini Digambar More v. Sangeeta Sharad More and Anr.

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

Dinkar Baburao Mugashe Vs Laxmibai Baburao Mohite and Ors.

Shri Balu Dattu Thorwat and Anr. Vs Amar Talim Mandal, Phale Tarf Alte, Tal.Panhala through Shri.Bhimrao Hindurao Borchate

The State of Maharashtra Vs Gangabai Ambo Gharat D/H Gurunath Ambo Patil and Ors.

Gurudayal Bishandas Arora Vs Sundri Jethanand Babani and Ors.

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sandeep Eknath Bhat and Anr.

Madhukar Ramchandra Bite and Anr. Vs Sharadkumar Nemchand Gandhi