Partly allowed

Bapu Shantaran Jangale v. M/S. Popular Car Bazaar and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Mar 2007AO/43/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay allowed an appeal against the rejection of ad-interim relief. It restrained respondents from taking forcible possession of a vehicle pending disposal of the notice of motion, with conditions on the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Restrained defendants 1-3 and 5-8 from taking forcible possession of the vehicle without due process until disposal of the Notice of Motion.

Bapu Shantaran Jangale Vs M/S. Popular Car… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 ((-1-))

¶2

MST

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.43 OF 2007

¶5

 Bapu Shantaram Jangale Appellant
 versus
 M/s.Popular Car Bazaar & ors. Respondents

¶6

 Mr.R.A.Thorat and Mr.P.J.Thorat for appellant.

¶7

 Mr.Avinashkumar Dubey with Diwakar Diwedi for
 respondent no.5.

¶8

 Mr.V.Z.Kankaria for respondents 1 to 3.

¶9

 CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.

¶10

 DATE : 28th March 2007

¶11

 PC :

¶12

 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, the
 respondent nos.1 to 3 and respondent no.5. The
 Respondent nos.4, 6 and 8 are served. Learned
 advocate for the appellant states that the
 seventh respondent is a formal party and the
 appellant is not seeking any relief against
 seventh respondent.

¶13

 2. The prayer in the suit filed by the appellant
 is for grant of an injunction restraining the
 respondents-defendants from taking forcible

¶14

 ((-2-))
 MST

¶15

 possession of a TATA Sumo Vehicle. Prayer (a) in
 the Notice of Motion taken out by the appellant
 is for restraining the original respondents from
 forcibly taking possession of the said TATA Sumo
 vehicle. Prayer (b) is for directing the Kurla
 Police Station to give protection to the
 appellant for the implementation of the order
 which may be passed in terms of prayer clause (a)
 of the Notice of Motion.

¶16

 3. By the impugned order, the learned Judge
 declined to grant ad-interim relief. The learned
 Judge also called upon the appellant to show
 cause as to why suit should not be ordered to be
 valued as required by Section 6(iii) of the
 Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959.

¶17

 4. After having heard the counsel appearing for
 the parties I find that a case is made out for
 grant of a limited ad-interim relief in favour of
 the appellant as against first to third
 respondents and fifth, sixth and eighth
 respondents. There is a prima facie material on
 record to show that under the orders of the
 learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
 11th Court, Kurla, the appellant was given the
 custody of the vehicle subject to execution of a

¶18

 ((-3-))
 MST

¶19

 bond. According to the case of the fifth
 respondent, the appellant has taken a finance for
 acquiring the said vehicle from the said
 respondent and the appellant has committed
 default in repayment of the said amount.

¶20

 5. As of today, there is a prima facie material
 on record to show that the appellant is in
 possession of the vehicle. If first to third
 respondents and/or fifth, sixth and eighth
 respondents want to proceed against the appellant
 for possessing the vehicle, they are free to
 adopt such proceedings as may be permissible in
 law. However, they cannot take forcible
 possession.

¶21

 6. Therefore, that part of the impugned order
 dated 13th December 2006 by which prayer for
 ad-interim relief was rejected, will have to be
 modified.

¶22

 7. Hence, the appeal is disposed of by passing
 following order :-

¶23

 (a) Till disposal of Notice of Motion No.4653 of
 2006, original defendant nos.1 to 3 and 5, 6 and
 8 are restrained from taking over possession of

¶24

 ((-4-))

¶25

MST

¶26

 the vehicle in question from the appellant
 without following the due process of law subject
 to the condition that the appellant will not
 transfer or part with possession of the said
 vehicle and will maintain the vehicle in the
 condition as it stands today;

¶27

 (b) In case any breach is committed by the
 appellant, liberty to the respondents to apply
 before the Trial Court for modification of the
 ad-interim order;

¶28

 (c) Notice of Motion No.4653 of 2006 shall be
 heard and disposed of expeditiously;

¶29

 (d) Rest of the impugned order stands confirmed;

¶30

 (e) In view of disposal of Appeal from Order,
 Civil Application No.67 of 2003 does not survive
 and stands dismissed as such.

¶31

 (A.S.OKA, J.)

Bapu Shantaran Jangale v. M/S. Popular Car Bazaar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bapu Shantaran Jangale v. M/S. Popular Car Bazaar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Anil Krishna Zunjurwad and Anr. Vs Smt. Indumati Harish Borse

Arjun Baburao Ekke Vs Mohemmed Salim Abdul Karim Sheikh

Vasant R.Purohit Vs Rajesh @ Gautam K.Bhosale

Rayagiri Ratgiri Gosavi Vs Shrikant R. Urunkar and Others.

Umar Kasam Memon and Ors. Vs Mr. Nitin Karir Pune Minicipal Corporation and Ors.

M/S. Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. Vs Rameshchandra Biyani and Anr. .