Disposed

Krishnarao Dhondiba Bhegade and Anr. v. Narayan Devidas Pandit and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Dec 2012WP/335/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court recorded a consent settlement wherein a trust agrees to transfer a plot to the respondent Narayan Pandit for a consideration of Rs 10,00,000/- as an as is where is basis. The court directed parties to pay security deposits to the Legal Services Committee failing which the issue would be opened.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner-Trust to pay Rs.30,000/- and Respondent-Narayan to pay Rs.15,000/- deposit with High Court Legal Services Committee by 7.1.2013.

Krishnarao Dhondiba Bhegade and Anr. Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

vrd 1 WP335/12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.335 OF 2012

¶5

Shri Krishnarao D. Bhegade and ors. ...Petitioners v/s

¶6

Narayan Devidas Pandit and ors.

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Mr S.M. Gorwadkar for Petitioners. Mr Sanjeev P. Kadam for Respondent No.1. Mr S.S. Pednekar, APP for State.

¶9

CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL J.

¶10

DATED : 10TH DECEMBER 2012.

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

Parties are present in Court. Heard Mr

¶13

Gorwadkar and Mr Kadam for respective parties. The

¶14

earlier notings dated 6^th February 2012, 2^nd August

¶15

2012, 22^nd August 2012, 23^rd October 2012 and 2^nd

¶16

November 2012 are explicit in its nature. Since it

¶17

was suggested on 2^nd November 2012 that the

¶18

respondent – Narayan to release 25 % of the price of

¶19

plot as per present reckoner value and / or to agree

¶20

respondent No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/to the educational institution, the petitioner –

¶21

vrd 2 WP335/12

¶22

educational institution had a meeting of its Managing Committee on 12^th November 2012 in which

¶23

vide resolution No.7 it was resolved to transfer

¶24

plot No.76 in favour of respondent No.1 – Narayan D.

¶25

Pandit on 'as is where is' basis. In pursuance to

¶26

said resolution, the respondent – Narayan, as stated

¶27

earlier, has agreed to release Rs.10,00,000/- out of

¶28

which certain amount will be towards the price of

¶29

the plot and certain amount to be specified later on

¶30

will be as a donation to the Trust. However, it is

¶31

agreed the ceiling will be only Rs.10,00,000/-

¶32

payable by Mr Narayan to the Trust. The

¶33

registration charges and stamp duty for conveyance

¶34

in respect of said plot shall be borne by the

¶35

respondent – Narayan. The sale deed will be executed by the authorised signatory of the Trust for which a resolution will be recorded by the Managing Committee. If there is legal impediment

¶36

from the Office of the Charity Commissioner, the

¶37

Trust will take appropriate permission at its costs.

¶38

Consent terms between the parties duly signed by the authorised signatory on behalf of the Trust and the

¶39

vrd 3 WP335/12 respondent – Narayan is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. Parties confirm the consent terms. The petitioner – Trust shall pay and deposit Rs.30,000/- and the respondent – Narayan to deposit Rs.15,000/- with High Court Legal Services Committee upto 7^th January 2013, failure to face consequences of opening the entire issue.

Krishnarao Dhondiba Bhegade and Anr. v. Narayan Devidas Pandit and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnarao Dhondiba Bhegade and Anr. v. Narayan Devidas Pandit and Anr.

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 State of Maharashtra Vs Sajid Usman Batliwala

Union of India Vs Mahmood Yakubali Umer and Anr.

Noel Naval Tata and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vandana D. Nagpal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ravindra Laxman Dhumal and Ors. Vs Vilas Namdeo Jadhav and Anr.

Choith Nanikram Harchandani Vs Union of India and Ors.