Disposed

M/S. B. R. Films and Anr. v. Tarlochand Singh Anand

Bombay HC13 Jan 2011CAW/2186/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the application to expedite the hearing of the underlying writ petition and listed it for final hearing. While rejecting the prayer for a stay of the eviction suit proceedings, it restrained the respondent from executing any decree until the writ petition is disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition expedited and listed for final hearing. Stay of suit proceedings rejected; execution of decree restrained pending writ disposal.

M/S. B. R. Films and Anr. Vs Tarlochand Singh… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2011)

spb/-

ca2186-09.sxw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶5

CIVIIL APPLICATION NO. 2186 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5068 OF 2008

¶6

M/s. B.R.Films & Anr. ... Applicants/ Petitioners. V/s. Tarlochand Singh Anand ... Respondent.

¶7

Mr. V.A.Thorat, Senior counsel i/by Smt. Sapna N. Nath for the Applicants/petitioners..

¶8

Mr. Y.E.Mooman for the Respondent.

¶9

¶10

CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 13^th JANUARY, 2011.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1 Heard Mr. Thorat, learned senior counsel for the applicants/petitioners and Mr. Mooman, learned counsel for the Respondent.

¶13

2 By this civil application, the applicants have made several prayers. One of the prayers claimed by way of prayer clause (c) is to expedite the hearing of the writ petition and fix a date for its hearing. In my view, since I am inclined to grant this prayer, it is not necessary to consider other prayers specially that of an appointment of a Receiver during the pendency of the writ petition. For any reason, if the petition cannot be heard and decided within a reasonable time, say of six months, the applicants/petitioners would be at liberty to file a fresh application for

spb/-

ca2186-09.sxw

appointment of a court receiver.

¶18

3 Learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners submitted that the proceedings of RAE Suit No. 122/247/2006 filed by the respondent in the Small Causes Court at Bandra, Mumbai for eviction of the applicants/petitioners be stayed. He submitted that if the petitioners succeed in the writ petition there would be no question of passing decree for eviction by the Small Causes Court, Bandra. Whether the respondent is entitled to a decree for eviction of the applicants/petitioners in the Small Causes Court is a matter which would be required to be heard and decided by the Small Causes Court at Bandra by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. It would be inappropriate to stay the proceedings before the Small Causes Court at this stage. The only protection that can be granted to the applicants is that the decree passed by the Small Causes Court shall not be executed till the disposal of the writ petition. Hence, I pass following order :

¶19

ORDER

¶20

i Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (c). Hearing of the writ petition is expedited.

¶21

ii List the writ petition for final hearing on weekly Board commencing from 24^th January, 2011 at its appropriate place.

¶22

iii Prayer for stay of the RAE Suit No.122/247/2006 pending in the Small Causes Court, Bandra is hereby rejected. However, the respondent shall not execute the decree, if any passed in his favour till the disposal of the writ petition bearing W.P. No. 5068/2008.

¶23

[D.G. KARNIK, J.]

M/S. B. R. Films and Anr. v. Tarlochand Singh Anand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. B. R. Films and Anr. v. Tarlochand Singh Anand

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

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rajkumar Mataprasad Chaube and Anr.

Reliance General Insurance Co.Limited Vs Nilam Tukaram Ghag and Othrs

Shri Arvind Ganpat @ Ravi Patil Vs Smt. Sulochana Harishchandra Palkar

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Zaherabee Mahmood Katal Sahab and Othrs

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs Dadoba Khachappa Kamble and Anr.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jayshri Hanuman Davre and Othrs