Partly allowed

A.B.Kasbekar. v. Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Ors.

Bombay HC6 Nov 2006WP/2738/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court recalled its order of dismissal in default on the ground that sufficient cause had been shown. The court held that since the underlying agreement for sale had been terminated, the subject matter of the petition had become academic, resulting in the discharge of the rule and disposal of the notice of motion.

What did the court decide?

Recall of order dated 6th November, 2006; Notice of Motion made absolute; Writ Petition restored; Rule discharged; Notice of Motion No.588 of 2006 disposed of.

A.B.Kasbekar. Vs Charity Commissioner… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

 .[1].

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.649 OF 2006
 IN
 WRIT PETITION NO.2738 OF 1994

¶3

 ALONG WITH

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.2738 OF 1994

¶5

 A.B.Kasbekar & Anr. ...Petitioners.

¶6

 Versus
 The Charity Commissioner
 Maharashtra State & 8 Ors. ...Respondents.

¶7

 ....
 ALONG WITH
 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.588 OF 2006
 IN
 WRIT PETITION NO.2738 OF 1994

¶8

 A.B.Kasbekar & Anr. ...Petitioners.

¶9

 Versus

¶10

 The Charity Commissioner
 Maharashtra State & 8 Ors. ...Respondents.
 And

¶11

 Deepak Girdharilal Matai ...Intervenor.

¶12

 ....
 Mr.V.S.Lonkar, Advocate for the Petitioners.
 Mr.S.U.Kamdar with G.S.Pikale i/b.S.V.Pikale &
 Co., Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 8.
 Mr.B.Shroff, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1-State.
 Mr.Mahendra Rathod i/b. Sunil & Co., Advocate for
 Respondent No.9.

¶13

 .[2].

¶14

 CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND
 SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ.

¶15

 DATED : DECEMBER 15, 2006.

¶16

 P.C.:

¶17

 1. Heard the learned counsel for the

¶18

 petitioners and the respondents. By this Notice
 of Motion, the petitioners are seeking recall of
 our order dated 6th November, 2006 whereby the
 above Petition was dismissed in default.

¶19

 2. Respondent Nos.2 to 8 have filed an
 affidavit of respondent No.2 dated 8th December,
 2006 categorically mentioning that the agreement
 for sale in favour of respondent No.9 has already
 been revoked and cancelled. In view thereof the
 learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 8 pointed
 out that the order of the learned Charity
 Commissioner granting sanction of the proposed
 sale does not survive any longer. By this
 Petition the petitioners have challenged the said
 sanction granted by the learned Charity

¶20

 .[3].

¶21

 Commissioner.

¶22

 3. Perused the affidavit in support of the

¶23

 Motion. Sufficient cause is made out for recall
 of our order dated 6th November, 2006. There is
 no case of inaction, negligence or want of
 bonafides. In view thereof the Notice of Motion
 is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
 Writ Petition is restored on file.

¶24

 4. In view of the fact that the aforesaid
 agreement for sale itself has been terminated, the
 order of the learned Charity Commissioner
 sanctioning the proposed sale does not survive.
 Hence, Petition also has become academic. Hence,
 Rule stands discharged.

¶25

 5. In view of the dismissal of the Petition,
 Notice of Motion No.588 of 2006 also does not

¶26

 survive, hence the same is also disposed of.

¶27

 [DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.]

¶28

 .[4].

¶29

 [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]

A.B.Kasbekar. v. Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.B.Kasbekar. v. Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, 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

Rashid Karim Mulani and Anr. Vs Tasnim Rashid Mulani

Velan Brazil Gonsalves Vs Shilpa Velan Gonsalves

Maharashtra State Electricity Board Vs Ramesh W. Sawant

Boun Foundation Trust Vs the Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Saraswatibai B.Charity Trust Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Saraswatibai B.Charity Trust Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.