Allowed

Rajendra Yeshwant Shah and Anr. v. Gillette India Ltd. and 45 Ors.

Bombay HC22 Sept 2009NMS/2498/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court disposed of a Notice of Motion filed by plaintiffs under liberty granted in a prior order. The court made the motion absolute and directed the first defendant to hand over specified shares to the plaintiffs pending the final disposal of the main suit.

What did the court decide?

Directed 1st Defendant to handover 600 shares (Schedule-I) and 1100 shares (Schedule-II) to Plaintiffs pending disposal of suit.

Rajendra Yeshwant Shah and Anr. Vs Gillette India… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2498 OF 2006
 IN

¶4

SUIT NO. 157 OF 2007

¶5

Rajendra Yeshwant Shah & Anr....Plaintiffs
vs.

¶6

Gillette India Ltd. & Ors....Defendants

¶7

Mr.Amol Doijode for the Plaintiffs.
Mr.Ankur Gupta i/b. M/s.Udwadia & Udeshi for
Defendant Nos.21 and 28.

¶8

Mr.Rakesh Singh i/b. M/s.Ramesh Makhija & Co. for
Defendant No.24.

¶9

 CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J.

¶10

DATED : SEPTEMBER 22, 2009

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

1Heard Counsel, for the plaintiffs and

¶13

Defendant No.24. None appears on behalf of other
defendants though they were served. Plaintiffs have
filed affidavit of service. It is taken on record.

¶14

2 The plaintiffs have taken out Second

¶15

Notice of Motion pursuant to liberty granted by this

¶16

¶17

Court by Order dated 25th July, 2000 passed by this

¶18

Court in Notice of Motion No.2025/2000. In para 8 of

¶19

the said order, liberty was granted to the
plaintiffs to apply again. The plaintiffs have filed
this Motion and are seeking the following reliefs :-

¶20

�(a)that pending the hearing and final

¶21

disposal of the Suit, Judgment and Decree

¶22

be passed on Admission, directing the 1st

¶23

Defendant to handover to the Plaintiffs 600
shares as per the SCHEDULE-I annexed
hereto;

¶24

(b)that pending the hearing and final

¶25

disposal of the Suit, the 1st Defendant be
directed to handover to the Plaintiffs 1100

¶26

shares as per the SCHEDULE-II annexed
hereto;�

¶27

3Counsel for the plaintiffs has invited my
attention to Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 and has

¶28

¶29

submitted that these shares are hold by first
defendant company and are not claimed by any other
defendants and any third party. It is an admitted
position that the plaintiffs are the owners of 700
shares of defendant no.1 company which was stolen
and thereafter, a complaint was lodged by the
plaintiff with MRA Marg Police Station. Thereafter,
the present suit has been filed.

¶30

4Since no reply has been filed by the other

¶31

defendants and admittedly, defendant no.24 was not
concerned with the shares which are mentioned in
Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of the chamber summons,
the averments made by the plaintiffs in the

¶32

affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion are not
controverted. The fact that therefore, these shares
which are mentioned in Schedule 1 and Schedule 3 are

¶33

with the company, has not been denied by the
defendant no.1 company.

¶34

5Under these circumstances and in view of

¶35

¶36

the liberty granted by this Court by its order dated
25.7.2000, Notice of Motion is made absolute in
terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).

¶37

6Notice of Motion is disposed of.

Rajendra Yeshwant Shah and Anr. v. Gillette India Ltd. and 45 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Yeshwant Shah and Anr. v. Gillette India Ltd. and 45 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

M/S. Elel Hotels and Investments Ltd. Vs Mr.Shyamlal Bhajanlal Luthria

Ms.Josephine C.Spencer and Ors. Vs the Indian Airlines Corpnand Ors.

M/S. Elel Hotels and Investment Ltd. Vs S.K.Thakkar and Ors.

Ganesh Balu Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Govind Ashok Shahane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Baliram Balrishna Pansare Vs Devdas Krishnaant Pansare and Ors.