Dismissed

Mr. Vallabhai Moolji Dedhia v. Mr. Terrence Joseph Coutino and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Oct 2007CAF/5339/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court rejected a civil appeal seeking a stay on the execution of a judgment and decree regarding sale of property. The court permitted the decree holders to continue with execution but restrained them from creating third-party rights or transferring the property during the appeal's pendency.

What did the court decide?

Stay on the operation and effect of judgment and decree dismissed; respondents restrained from creating third-party rights or transferring property during appeal.

Mr. Vallabhai Moolji Dedhia Vs Mr. Terrence Joseph Coutino… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5339 OF 2006

¶5

IN

¶6

FIRST APPEAL NO.93 OF 2002

¶7

Mr.Vallabhai Moolji Dedhia

¶8

: Applicant

¶9

versus

¶10

Mr.Terrence Joseph Coutino
and others: Respondents.

¶11

Mr.S.M.Sabrad i/by R.D.Suryawanshi for the

¶12

applicant.

¶13

Mr.A.J.Almeida for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶14

CORAM : J.N.PATEL &

¶15

A.A.SAYED, JJ.

¶16

DATED : OCTOBER 15, 2007.

¶17

P.C.

¶18

1.Heard. This civil application is filed
by original Defendant No.2 seeking stay of the
operation and effect of the judgment and decree

¶19

¶20

dated 31.08.2000 passed by the II Joint Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Thane in Special Civil
Suit No.1337 of 1996. The subject matter of the
suit is two galas which the plaintiffs agreed to
purchase from Defendant No.1 who claimed that
these galas have been sold to Defendant No.2.

¶21

2.From the impugned judgment and decree We
find that the Respondents have already paid the
amount of consideration and, therefore, in our
view , it will not be proper to pass any interim
order as sought in this application to affect the
operation of the impugned judgment and decree and
thereby staying execution of the same. But this
Court makes it clear that during pendency of the
appeal, the Respondents/decree holders shall not
create any third party rights and/or alienate,
part-with possession of the suit property and/or
transfer these two galas in favour of any third
party without permission of this Court. With
these directions, the civil application is
rejected.

¶22

[A.A.SAYED,J]

Mr. Vallabhai Moolji Dedhia v. Mr. Terrence Joseph Coutino and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Vallabhai Moolji Dedhia v. Mr. Terrence Joseph Coutino 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

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shri.Manik R. Jagdale and Ors.

Central Bank of India. Vs Shridhar Chandrakant Sawant and Ors.

Gajanan Krishnaji Tandel Vs Shashikant Raghunath Tandel and Othrs

Vishwas Ramchandra Agalave and Ors. Vs Chinchwad Deosthan Trust and Ors.

Pradeep Raghunath Penkar Vs Shweta Pradeep Penkar and Anr.

M/S. Vaidya and Co. and Ors. Vs the Municipal Corporation of the City of Thane andOR