This court disposed of Notice of Motion No. 2846 of 2006. The appellant/applicant was present in person, while the counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent did not desire execution of the cost order during the appeal pendency. The court accepted this statement and passed no order.
No order needs to be passed in the Notice of Motion.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2846 OF 2006
IN
APPEAL NO. 661 OF 2006
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 16 OF 2006
IN
MISC.PETITION NO. 70 OF 2005
IN
TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 4 OF 2003
R.V. Bhasin
Versus
Sunil Kapur] .. Respondent
Mr. R.V. Bhasin - the appellant/applicant present in
person.
Mr. Sanjay Jain i/b M/s. L.J. Law for the respondent.
CORAM: R.M. LODHA, &
S.A. BOBDE, JJ.
DATED: 08TH DECEMBER, 2006
P.C. :
.Mr.Sanjay Jain, the counsel for the
respondent submits that the respondent is not desirous
of executing the order of cost during the pendency of
the Appeal. We accept his statement and in view
thereof, no order needs to be passed in the Notice of
Motion.
: 2 :
2.Notice of Motionstands disposed of
accordingly.
Sd/-
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
Sd/-
[S.A. BOBDE, J.]
R.V. Bhasin
Sunil Kapur
R.M. Lodha
S.A. Bobde
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court