Disposed

Allwyn Gonsalves v. Cardinal Simon Pimenta and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Oct 2007APP/970/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged an order maintaining status quo regarding suit property in a specific performance suit. The court held no further orders were necessary following an assurance by counsel not to transfer the property.

What did the court decide?

No further orders necessary; interim status quo stay vacated; appeal disposed of.

	IN OR	THE HIGH COURT OF JU DINARY ORIGINAL	DICATURE A CIVIL	T JURI	BOMBAY SDICTION
		APPEAL NO.970	OF		1999
		IN
		NOTICE OF MOTION	NO.1708	OF	1997
		IN
		SUIT NO.719	OF		1997
Allwyn G Cardinal S	onsalves v/ imon Pime	s nta and ors.	...Appellant ...Respondents
Mr	A.V.	Anturkar i/b Mr V.S.	Talkute for		Appellant.
Mr	Vinay	Hegde for Respondent	Nos.2	to	10.
CORAM DATE	:	D.K. DESHMUKH AND : 11TH	J.H. BH OCTOBER	ATIA	JJ. 2007.

IN
OR

THE
HIGH
COURT
OF
JU
DINARY
ORIGINAL

DICATURE
A
CIVIL

T
JURI

BOMBAY
SDICTION

APPEAL
NO.970

1999

NOTICE
OF
MOTION

NO.1708

1997

SUIT
NO.719

1997

Allwyn G
Cardinal S

onsalves
v/
imon Pime

s
nta and ors.

...Appellant
...Respondents

A.V.

Anturkar
i/b
Mr
V.S.

Talkute
for

Appellant.

Vinay

Hegde
for
Respondent

Nos.2

10.

CORAM
DATE

D.K.
DESHMUKH
AND
:
11TH

J.H.
BH
OCTOBER

ATIA

JJ.
2007.

1.	By this appeal, the appellant who is original
plaintiff,	challenges the order dated 23rd February	1999
passed	in notice of motion No.1708 of 1997 by	the
learned	Single Judge of this Court. The plaintiff	had
taken	out this notice of motion for an order	restraining
the	defendants from transferring the suit property.	The
suit	of the plaintiff is for a decree of	specific
performa	nce of the contract. It is an admitted	position
that	even before the suit was filed, the agreement	in
favour	of the plaintiff was terminated and an	agreement
to	sell the property to defendant Nos.2 to 10	was
entered	into in January 1997. The sale deed was	also
executed	in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 10 in the	month
of	April 1997. After the learned Single Judge	rejected
the	motion, this appeal was filed and in this	appeal,
there	was an interim order made directing the part	ies to
maintain	status-quo. We have been informed that	the
suit	of the plaintiff is at the stage of framing	issues.
The	learned counsel appearing for defendant Nos.2	to 10
states	that the defendants shall not, without	seeking
leave	of the Court, transfer, alienate or create	third
party	rights in the property. We accept the	statement.
In	our opinion in view of the statement made by	the

By this appeal, the appellant who is original

plaintiff,

challenges
the
order
dated
23rd
February

1999

passed

in
notice
of
motion
No.1708
of
1997
by

the

learned

Single
Judge
of
this
Court.
The
plaintiff

had

taken

out
this
notice
of
motion
for
an
order

restraining

the

defendants
from
transferring
the
suit
property.

The

suit

of
the
plaintiff
is
for
a
decree
of

specific

performa

nce
of
the
contract.
It
is
an
admitted

position

that

even
before
the
suit
was
filed,
the
agreement

favour

of
the
plaintiff
was
terminated
and
an

agreement

sell
the
property
to
defendant
Nos.2
to
10

was

entered

into
in
January
1997.
The
sale
deed
was

also

executed

in
favour
of
defendant
Nos.2
to
10
in
the

month

April
1997.
After
the
learned
Single
Judge

rejected

the

motion,
this
appeal
was
filed
and
in
this

appeal,

there

was
an
interim
order
made
directing
the
part

ies
to

maintain

status-quo.
We
have
been
informed
that

the

suit

of
the
plaintiff
is
at
the
stage
of
framing

issues.

The

learned
counsel
appearing
for
defendant
Nos.2

to
10

states

that
the
defendants
shall
not,
without

seeking

leave

of
the
Court,
transfer,
alienate
or
create

third

party

rights
in
the
property.
We
accept
the

statement.

our
opinion
in
view
of
the
statement
made
by

the

learned	counsel	appearing for	defenda	nt Nos	.2	to 10,	no
further	orders	are necessary in	the	appeal.		Appeal	is
disposed	off.	Needless to	say	that	the	order	of

learned

counsel

appearing
for

defenda

nt
Nos

to
10,

further

orders

are
necessary
in

the

appeal.

Appeal

disposed

off.

Needless
to

say

that

the

order

Allwyn Gonsalves v. Cardinal Simon Pimenta and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Allwyn Gonsalves v. Cardinal Simon Pimenta and 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

Faircot S.A. Vs Tata Steel Ltd.

Maharashtra Film Stage and Cultural Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs Mr.Shabab Ahmed and Ors.

Mcdermott International Inc. Vs Oil and Natural Gas Commiss Ion

Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai and Anr.

Bharat Bhushan Vs Rank Enterprises Ltd.

Ragini Narayan Vs Minnie Narayan