Dismissed

Jyoti Mahesh Gadhia Mumbai v. Bharat Petrolium Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Feb 2009APP/66/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge required the appellant to file an affidavit and appear for cross-examination to prove exclusive ownership of attached property. The High Court rejected the appeal, holding the direction was not erroneous as the appellant approached claiming the property was her own.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed. The appellant was granted eight weeks to file an affidavit in pursuance of the impugned order.

Jyoti Mahesh Gadhia Mumbai Vs Bharat Petrolium… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

APPEAL NO. 66 OF 2009 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1456 OF 2006 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 416 OF 2005 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 3986 OF 2001

Jyoti Mahesh Gadhia

).. Appellant

Versus

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and another ).. Respondents

¶9

Mr V Y Sanglikar i/b Mr Ajit Shobhawat for the Appellant. Mr S H Doijode a/w Mr Parag Kapadia i/b Doijode & Associates for Respondent No.1.

¶10

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

¶11

DATED : 17TH FEBURARY 2009

¶12

P.C.

¶13

We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. Challenge is to the order dated 8^th December 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge on the Chamber Summons taken out by the present Appellant. The contention raised before us is that the order suffers from error of jurisdiction inasmuch as in the order of the learned Single

¶14

-2-

¶15

Judge while entering the objection to continuation of attachment of the property of the Appellant, the onus has been incorrectly placed upon the Appellant and it is for the decree-holder to assert and prove that the attachment is correct.

¶16

We are unable to find any merit in this contention as the Appellant has approached the Court on the plea that the property in question belongs to her and she has acquired the same by her own means and the judgment-debtor has nothing to do with the said property. In these circumstances, we do not see any error of jurisdiction in the order of the learned Single Judge requiring the Appellant to file an affidavit and to be present for cross-examination before the Commissioner. In fact, the Appellant had undertaken to file an affidavit, but however, as advised in the meanwhile, had filed the present Appeal. Be that as it may, it is certainly for the Appellant-Applicant to prove that her property is being wrongly attached by establishing her case that she is the exclusive owner of the property and the property has been acquired from her funds. This direction of the learned Single Judge is neither erroneous in law nor suffers from jurisdictional error. No merits. Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶17

-3-

¶18

The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant prays for further time to file an affidavit in pursuance of the order dated 8^th December 2008 of the learned Single Judge. The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 has no objection. We grant eight weeks time to file the affidavit. After the filing of such affidavit, the Appellant shall comply with the order of the learned Single Judge.

¶19

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶20

DR. D Y CHANDRACHUD, J.

Jyoti Mahesh Gadhia Mumbai v. Bharat Petrolium Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti Mahesh Gadhia Mumbai v. Bharat Petrolium Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

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

Ashok Ukaram Bodha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vivek Travels Vs Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd.

M/S. Whiz Enterprise Private Ltd. Vs M/S. Whiz Enterprises Private Limited and Jairam Masand

Jasveer Kaur Alias Jasveer Kaur Ahluwalia Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and 4 Ors.

The Best Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. Vs the Brihanmumbai Electric Supply Transport and Undertaking and 2 Ors.

Sandeep B. Umralkar and Another Vs the Manager Co-Operative Bank Limited and 9 Others