Partly allowed

Lawyers Chambers Premises Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. Vinoda C. Shetty

Bombay HC18 Jan 2007WP/4054/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Bombay High Court addressed an application to appoint a Court Commissioner. The court found the sole purpose was to appoint an architect for inspection. Holding that parties can appoint architects at their own cost, the court set aside the impugned order allowing the commissioner appointment.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order allowing the appointment of the Court Commissioner is set aside. Rule made absolute permitting the respondent to appoint an Architect at her own cost.

Lawyers Chambers Premises Co-Operative Society Ltd… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

:1:

¶2

sachin.

¶3

 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO. 4054 OF 2006.

¶5

 Lawyers’ Chambers Premises Co-op.
 Society Limited. ..Petitioner.

¶6

 Versus.

¶7

 Smt. Vinod C. Shetty. ..Respondent.

¶8

---

¶9

 V. Y. Sanglikar for the petitioner.

¶10

 Anupama B. Shah for the respondents.

¶11

CORAM: S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.

¶12

DATE: JANUARY 18, 2007.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

 1. Rule. Rule returnable and heard forthwith.

¶15

 2. There is no objection by the petitioner for
 giving inspection to the respondent. The respondent’s
 grievance to that effect stands redressed.

¶16

 3. The only question is whether the appointment

¶17

 of the Court Commissioner shall justify in the facts and
 circumstances of the case. The application of the
 respondent No.1 itself makes it abundantly clear that
 the sole purpose was to collect evidence. It is settled

¶18

:2:

¶19

 law that this is not permissible. The application was
 not merely for inspection. Had it been for that purpose

¶20

 only, the matter would have been different.

¶21

 4. The respondent seeks leave to appoint

¶22

 Architect for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not

¶23

 the work has been carried out as alleged, especially in
 respect of the premises in the use and occupation of
 respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 is always at liberty

¶24

 to do so at her own cost. The petitioner agrees and
 undertakes to permit the Architect to inspect the

¶25

 building for this purpose after due notice.

¶26

 5. The impugned order is set aside. Rule is

¶27

 accordingly made absolute in the above terms.

Lawyers Chambers Premises Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. Vinoda C. Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lawyers Chambers Premises Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. Vinoda C. Shetty

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

Ambika Shivajiganesh Naidu Vs Bhavaniprasad Naidu and Ors.

Mohini Hargovind Shivdasani Vs Hargovind Shivdasani

Arti Ashok Ghule Vs Radhabai Laxman Sanas and Ors.

Vikas Narayan Sangle and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Milind Madhav Patange Vs Jat Urban Co-Op.Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Malubai Kashinath Madhavi Vs Khandu Dharma Pawar and Anr.