Disposed

Pravin Durlabhdas Shah and Ors. v. Indulal Durlabhdas Shah and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Sept 2009RPA/6/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition and civil application were disposed of. The court clarified that obligations to discharge are to be met by heirs occupying the disputed flat and held deposited funds should be transferred to BEST Undertaking, rendering no substantive consideration necessary.

What did the court decide?

Clarified that heirs in occupation must discharge obligations and funds in joint account are to be transferred to BEST Undertaking; disposed of review and application.

Pravin Durlabhdas Shah and Ors. Vs Indulal Durlabhdas Shah and Ors. — Partition | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (STAMP) NO.23021 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.140 OF 2009 IN REVIEW PETITION (STAMP) NO.23021 OF 2009 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.24 OF 2006 IN S.C. SUIT NO.6214 OF 2003

¶3

Pravin Dulabhdas Shah & Ors.

¶4

...Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

Indulal Durlabhdas Shah & Ors.

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Mr.Peri Modia with Mr.Nevil Lasshkari & Mr.A.S.Pal i/b Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe for Petitioners.

¶9

Mr.H.Toor with Ms.Kavita Anchan i/b M/s.M.V.Kini & Co. for Respondent No.4.

¶10

CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 20, 2009.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Inspite of notice in terms of order dated 16^th October 2009, the

¶13

Respondent No.5 has not chosen to appear. The notice clearly indicated that

¶14

if he failed to appear in the proceedings pursuant to the notice served on

¶15

him as per the said order, the Court will proceed on the assumption that he

¶16

: 2 :

¶17

has no objection for clarifying and/or modifying the order passed by this Court on 2^nd February 2006 to the effect that the obligations which were required to be discharged by Respondent No.3 will hence forth be discharged by his heirs and legal representatives, in particular, who are in occupation of the disputed flat. The Court, therefore, would proceed on the assumption that the Respondent No.5 has no objection for recording that position. It is ordered accordingly.

¶18

In addition, it is further clarified that the amount deposited by the parties in the joint account opened with Respondent No.6 HDFC Bank, will have to be made over to Respondent No.4 BEST Undertaking. In view of the subsequent development, the Bank shall honour the cheque signed by the Applicant instead of joint signatory, so as to make over the amount lying in the joint account to Respondent No.4 BEST Undertaking to effectuate the directions contained in order dated 2^nd February 2006.

¶19

In view of the above, nothing survives for consideration in the

¶20

Review Petition as well as Civil Application. The same are disposed of.

¶21

A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Pravin Durlabhdas Shah and Ors. v. Indulal Durlabhdas Shah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravin Durlabhdas Shah and Ors. v. Indulal Durlabhdas Shah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Bhatnagar and Ors. Vs Vinod Rajkumar Bhatnagar and Ors.

Nitant Jagganath Chavan Vs Arun Anant Mane and Ors.

Gram Shikshan Samitee, Umrane and Ors. Vs Vilas Vishram Deore and Ors.

The General Manager Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertkain G Vs Prachar Communications Ltd. and Anr.

Prachar Communications Ltd. Vs the General Manager Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking and Ors.

Mulund Shital Darshan Co-Op. Hsg. Society Vs the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District and 6 Ors.