Disposed
Suresh Jayantilal Thanawala and Anr. v. Lok Housing and Constructions Ltd. and Ors.
Bombay HCS/1695/1998
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYIN THE…
What the court decided
AI extract
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
SUIT NO. 1695 OF 1998
Suresh Jayantilal Thanawala. ... Plaintiff.
V/s.
Lok Housing & Constructions
Ltd. and others. ... Defendants.
And
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. ... Applicant.
Sanjay Kotak i/b. Purnanand & Co.
for the plaintiff.
Sanjay Jain i/b. Udwadia & Udeshi
for defendant No.1.
Ms.Bharti Lele i/b. Bhave & Co.
for defendant No.2.
Yogesh Paranjpe i/b. Paras Kuhad & Asso.
for defendant No.4.
Doras Jones i/b B.Munim & Co.
for defendant No.6.
P.Fernandes i/b. Dave Girish & Co.
for defendant No.12.
Birendra Saraf with Faizal Sayyed and
Mayur Bhojwani i/b. M.K.Ambalal & Co.
for defendant No.13.
Mahendra Ghehani with Nitin Jain i/b.
Law Charter for defendant Nos.17 and 18.
Ms.Shruti Pathak Chainani i/b. S.Pathak
& Co. for defendant No.19.
CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J.
DATED: 19th December 2007.
P.C.:
. Heard parties to the suit.
2. The learned counsel for the parties
tendered consent terms between plaintiffs and
defendant No.1 duly signed by plaintiff No.2 for
herself and as power of attorney holder of
plaintiff No.1 and countersigned by their
advocate. Defendant No.1 has also signed the said
consent terms and countersigned by their advocate.
The consent terms are taken on record and marked
‘X’ for identification.
3. The learned counsel for plaintiff,
defendant No.1 and defendant No.13- Kotak Mahindra
Bank Ltd. have placed on record minutes of order
dated 19th December, 2007. The same is taken on
record and marked as ‘X-1’ for identification.
4. The consent terms are examined. They are
acceptable to the parties to the suit. They are
found to be reasonable and proper. They shall
form part of the minutes of order. The statements
made in the consent terms are taken on record and
undertakings given, if any, are accepted.
5. On the motion made by the plaintiffs and
defendant No.1, the present suit stands decreed in
terms of the minutes of order with no order as to
costs.
6. Decree be drawn accordingly.
(V.C.DAGA, J.)
Suresh Jayantilal Thanawala
Lok Housing & Constructions Ltd.
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
V.C.DAGA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court