The motion to recall a stay order or for necessary directions was disposed of as the respondent bank had already allowed the operation of the locker following the grant of Letters of Administration.
No further directions in the notice of motion were deemed necessary as the bench was satisfied with the respondent's action.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J.
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.82 OF 2009 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.1029 OF 2006
Sunit Kumar Amiya Roy. ...Petitioner. Vs. Central Bank of India. ...Respondent..
...Respondent..
.... Mr.Vinod N. Solanki for the Petitioner. Mr.Samer Khandekar i/b. Thakore Jariwala & Asso. for the Respondent.
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.
August 7, 2009 . P.C.
It is common ground between the Learned Advocates that after the service of the Notice of Motion, the Respondent Bank has allowed the operation of the Bank Locker in pursuance of the grant of Letters of Administration to the Petitioner. A statement to that effect has been made by the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent. In that view of the matter, no further directions are necessary in the Notice of Motion. The Motion is accordingly disposed of. The oral application for the grant of costs is declined.
Sunit Kumar Amiya Roy
Central Bank of India
DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
