Single-line order dismissing the suit as entirely disposed off against original defendants, noting remaining defendants were deleted by prior order.
suit disposed off as against defendant Nos. 1 to 8; defendants 9 and 10 deleted by prior order.
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.
VPH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT No. 1632 OF 1981 --------------------------------------------Office notes, : office memoranda : of coram, : appearances, : Court’s orders : Court’s or Judge’s directions & : order Registrar’s : orders : ---------------------------------------------Mr. M. S. Rane, advocate i/b H. V. Gala & Co. for plaintiff. Mr. Raj Patel, advocate i/b Rustumji & Ginwala for defendant Nos. 1. CORAM: Mrs. RANJANA DESAI, J. DATE : AUGUST 24, 2007. P.C.: . The learned counsel for the plaintiff states that suit is disposed off as against defendant Nos. 1 to 8 in terms of consent terms filed in Appeal No. 1063 of 1984. He further states that as regards defendant Nos. 9 and 10, they are deleted by reason of order passed in Chamber Summons No. 465 of 1985 by order dated 4th July 1985. In view of this, nothing survives in this suit, and the suit
is disposed off.
Sd/[ Smt. RANJANA DESAI, J.]
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT NOS. 1 TO 8
DEFENDANT NOS. 9 AND 10
RANJANA DESAI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
