Allowed

Shri Satchit Datta Chari v. Smt. Antoneta Faleiro

Bombay HC23 Nov 2011CA/115/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim application, the Court granted an injunction restraining the respondent from dispossessing the applicant from the suit premises pending the disposal of the admitted Second Appeal, subject to maintenance of status quo.

What did the court decide?

Interim injunction restraining the respondent from dispossessing the applicant from the suit premises until disposal of the appeal.

Shri Satchit Datta Chari Vs Smt. Antoneta Faleiro — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶2

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 115 OF 2011

¶3

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO. 73 OF 2011

¶5

SHRI SATCHIT DATTA CHARI Versus SMT. ANTONETA FALEIRO

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

... Respondent

¶8

Shri S. S. Kakodkar, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri J.P. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶9

Coram:F. M. REIS, J.

¶10

Date:23rd November, 2011

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

Heard Shri S.S. Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and Shri J.P. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶13

This is an application for interm relief, inter alia, to restrain the respondent from dispossessing the applicant from the suit premises without following due process of law.

¶14

Shri Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant states that the Second Appeal has already been admitted. Learned Counsel further states that during the pendency of the suit an injunction to that effect was in operation against the respondent. Learned Counsel further points out that, as such, the aplication filed by the applicant deserves to be granted, as otherwise, the appeal preferred by the appellant would become infructuous.

¶15

On the other hand, Shri Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing

¶16

for the respondent has pointed out that there is no structure at the site and as such there is no question of granting any protection to the applicant as prayed for. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the injuction if at all granted should be subject to the applicant mainaiting status quo in respect of the suit premises.

¶17

Having heard the learned Counsel and taking note of the fact that the Second Appeal has already been admitted and an injunction was in operation during the pendency of the suit, I find that it would be appropriate that until disposal of the appeal an injunction be granted restraining the respondent not to dispossess the applicant, otherwise then in due process of law subject to the applicant maintaining status quo in respect of the suit premises. Liberty is given to the applicant to apply in case any status quo at the site is required to be changed.

¶18

Application stands disposed of.

¶19

F. M. REIS, J.

¶20

Shri Satchit Datta Chari v. Smt. Antoneta Faleiro

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Satchit Datta Chari v. Smt. Antoneta Faleiro

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

Shri Josinho Correia and Anr., Vs the State of Goa through the Chief Secretary and 6 Ors.

N. S. Quirtani (Deceased) by His Lr'S Vs State of Goa Represented by Executive Engineer Works Division Vi, Public Works Department

State of Goa Rep. by Executive Engineer, Vs N. S. Quirtani and 3 Ors.

State ( through P.I. Shri Uttam Y. Raut Dessai, Pernem Police Station) Vs Shri Aman Bhardwaj @ Amar Ranbhar

The Candolim Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Rep. by Its Manager Mr. Sandeep v. Bandekar Vs Mr. Umakant Hari Mahale

M/S. Alcon Constructions Rep. by Its Partner Mr. Victor Albuquerque Vs Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation