Disposed

M/S. R.J. Construction and Ors. v. Premji Hirji Shah and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Oct 2010NMA/866/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to entertain the appeal at an interlocutory stage. The Court ordered the single Judge to dispose of the pending Chamber Summons within three months, while the previous receiver order remains operative.

What did the court decide?

The appeal and Notices of Motion were disposed of with no order as to costs; the single Judge is directed to decide the Chamber Summons within three months.

M/S. R.J. Construction and Ors. Vs Premji Hirji Shah… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

APPEAL NO. 173 OF 2010

¶5

WITH

¶6

NOTICE OF MOTION NOS. 866 AND 2756 OF 2010 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1611 OF 2008 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 388 OF 2008 IN

¶7

SUIT NO. 4345 OF 2008

¶8

M/s. R.J. Construction and others

¶9

...Appellants

¶10

versus

¶11

Premjir H. Shah, since deceased, represented by L.Rs and others ... Respondents

¶12

Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Gaurav Joshi and Mr. Rohan Rajadhyaksha, instructed by M/s. Thakore Jariwala & Associates, for the appellants.

¶13

Mr. F.E. D’Vitre, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Swapnil Bangoor, instructed by M/s. L.C.Tolat & Company, for respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

¶14

Mr. A.K. Shaikh, representative of Court Receiver, present.

¶15

CORAM : P.B. MAJMUDAR &

¶16

ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.

¶17

DATE: OCTOBER 19, 2010.

¶18

P.C.

¶19

This appeal is directed against the ad-interim order of the learned

¶20

single Judge dated 5^th March, 2010 passed in Notice no. 773 of 2009 in Chamber Summons No. 1611 of 2008 in Execution Application No. 193 of 2009.

¶21

-2-

¶22

It is an admitted fact that the Chamber Summons is still pending before the learned single Judge and is not disposed of finally. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge has appointed Court Receiver and asked him to take symbolic possession of 4700 sq.mtrs. of land as set out in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Consent Terms so also shown by pink colour in Exhibit-E to the affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons. The learned single Judge directed the Court Receiver to take inventory and the defendants were restrained from creating any third party rights. It is pointed out out by both the Advocates that the Chamber Summons is still pending before the learned single Judge and is not disposed of finally. In the meanwhile, Receiver’s report is also placed on record. Objections are also pointed out to such report by the learned counsel for the appellants.

¶23

In our view, instead of entertaining the appeal at such an interlocutory stage, it would be just and proper to request the learned single Judge to dispose of the Chamber Summons within a period of three months from today and the materials placed before this Court in the present appeal may be placed before the learned single Judge and the Receiver’s report may also be placed before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge is requested to consider and pass an appropriate order. Till the Chamber Summons is disposed of, the order passed by this Court on 29^th March, 2010 shall continue to operate and to that effect the order of the learned single Judge

¶24

-3-

¶25

shall stand modified. The Appeal and the Notices of Motion are accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.

¶26

P. B. MAJMUDAR, J.

¶27

ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.

M/S. R.J. Construction and Ors. v. Premji Hirji Shah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. R.J. Construction and Ors. v. Premji Hirji Shah and 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

Appasaheb Ramchandra Jadhav and Ors. Vs State of Maharasthra and Ors.

Maruti Ambaji Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Eknath Rama Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Tatyasaheb Kore Dental College and Research Centre Vs 1.UNION of India, and Ors.

Aristo Realty Developers Ltd. Anr. Vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 3 Ors.

Aristo Realty Developers Ltd. and Anr. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.