Disposed

Hemant M. Kapadia and Anr. v. M/S. Mahesh Associates

Bombay HC10 Feb 2009S/2680/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of Suit No. 2680 of 1988 based on settlement consent terms. The parties settled their dispute over immovable property rights for a specified sum. The consent terms were recorded as an order and the suit was disposed of with directions for refund of court fees.

What did the court decide?

Suit disposed of in consent terms; refund of court fees as per rules.

Hemant M. Kapadia and Anr. Vs M/S. Mahesh… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

SUIT NO. 2680 OF 1988

¶4

Hemant M. Kapadia & Anr.

¶5

... Plaintiffs.

¶6

V/s.

¶7

M/s. Mahesh Association.

¶8

... Defendants.

¶9

Ms. Preeti Shah for the Plaintiffs. Mr. Sandeep Vimadalal i/b. Vimadalal & Co. for the Defendants.

¶10

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.

¶11

10TH FEBRUARY 2009.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants have settled the

¶14

dispute out of Court.

¶15

However, they desire to place the arrangement

¶16

arrived at on record as it touches the rights in respect

¶17

of a immovable property.

¶18

The Plaintiffs were entitled to the benefit of an

¶19

agreement	date	d	7th Au	gust 1	987 whi	ch	was in	respect	of
Flat	No.303	of	a	building	which		is more	particu	larly
described	in	clause	2(a)	of	the cons	ent	terms.	How	ever,
the	parties	have	agreed	that	the	Plai	ntiffs would	give	up
all	benefits	and	rights	under	this	ag	reement in	favour	of
the De	fendants	upon	the D	efendants	paying		to them	a sum	of

¶20

:2:

¶21

Rs.50,0	0,000/-.			The	payment	of	Rs	.50,00,0	00/-	is	already
made	by	Pay	Orders,	deta	ils of	which	are	set	out	in	clause
2(c)	of	the	consent	term	s.	Since	the	cons	ent	terms	record
that	the		Pay O	rder	is paid	in	full	and	final		settlement
and	th	e	Plaintiffs	have	agreed	to	give	up	their	rig	hts in
respect		of	flat No	.303,	it is	record	ed	that	there	are	no

¶22

claims against each other. The Criminal proceedings would

¶23

also come to an end by virtue of these terms.

¶24

4.	Since the property	rights are settled	and the
Plaintiffs	have willin	gly given	up	their	rights		therein,
the consent	terms are	taken on	record	and	marked	‘X’	for
identification.	The	terms have	been	fully	understo	od	by
the Plaintiffs	and there	after, they	have	signed	them.		The
Defendants	have also	understood	these	terms	and	have	made
the payme	nts pursuant	thereto.	Both	sides	state	that	the

¶25

terms fully and completely record the agreement arrived at

¶26

by them and they have signed them voluntarily.

¶27

In such circumstances, there will be an order in terms of he consent terms. The Suit will be disposed of

¶28

in the consent terms. Refund of Court fees, as per rules.

¶29

(S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)

Hemant M. Kapadia and Anr. v. M/S. Mahesh Associates

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemant M. Kapadia and Anr. v. M/S. Mahesh Associates

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Reliance Exports Ltd. Vs Pramilavati Mehra and Ors.

Hector Fali Patel Vs Anita Hector Patel

Balkrishna Bapu Khadang Vs Ashabai Kashid / Mane

Bassein Catholic Co-Op.Bank Ltd. Vs Kishor Kuntadi and Ors.

Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. and Anr. Vs Jayesh C. Doshi and 4 Ors.

Swapna Kumar Benoyendranath Lahiri Vs Smt. Suprabha B. Lahiri andORS