Allowed

Ashesh P. Goradia v. Chintan Ashesh Goradia

Bombay HC30 Sept 2013NMS/1460/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court granted post facto approval for the petitioner to purchase flats in the name of a minor without prior court permission, condoning the delay and accepting the explanation provided in the affidavit.

What did the court decide?

The notice of motion is made absolute granting unconditional apology for non-compliance, condoning delay, and approving the purchase of the flats.

Ashesh P. Goradia Vs Chintan Ashesh Goradia — Child Custody and Guardianship | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

.. 1 .. 39-NMS-1460/12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY .

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1460 OF 2012 IN MISC. PETITION NO.6 OF 2010

¶5

Ashesh Pravinchandra Goradia ... Petitioner/Appilcant

¶6

Vs .

¶7

Master Chintan Ashesh Goradia ... Respondent

¶8

Mr K. T. Kukreja i/b Devang H. Shah for petitioner/Applicant.

¶9

CORAM : R.D.DHANUKA J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 30, 2013.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Leave to amend is granted to correct number of prayer clause (c ) in the notice of motion. Amendment be carried out forthwith. Reverification is dispensed with.

¶12

By this notice of motion, petitioner seeks condonation of delay in filing this motion and seeks to tender unconditional apology for non compliance of part of order dated 15^th July 2010 and post facto approval in respect of purchase of the property described in amended prayer cluase (c ) of the notice of motion.

¶13

1/4

¶14

Asmita

¶15

.. 2 .. 39-NMS-1460/12

¶16

Petitioner is the father of the minor Master Chintan Ashesh

¶17

Goradia. By an order dated 26^th June 2007, this Court permitted the petitioner to sell the flat standing in the name of the minor and to purchase a new flat within a period of fifteen months. Petitioner was also directed purchase one mediclaim policy and one another suitable life insurance policy for the minor, for an amount not less than Rs.10,00,000/-.

¶18

By an Order dated 15^th July 2010, this Court permitted the petitioner to sell the said flat to Mr Bharat Pratap Vora for Rs.5,25,00,000/on various conditions. One of the condition of the said order was that from the amount lying in deposit or lying in fixed deposit (with accrued interest), the petitioner will be entitled to invest in a suitable flat for the minor, which flat shall be purchased in the name of the minor and any subsisting FD may be broken for that purpose. The said purchase however, would be made by placing the proposed transaction before this Court and obtaining prior leave of this court.

¶19

Pursuant to the said order, petitioner obtained policy in the name of minor as directed by this Court. It is the case of the petitioner that though petitioner saw various suitable flats for purchase in the name of minor, petitioner could not get suitable flat. Some of the sellers were insisting that

¶20

2/4

¶21

Asmita

¶22

.. 3 .. 39-NMS-1460/12

¶23

prior permission of this Court shall not be taken. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of such conditions imposed by the seller, petitioner was not able to comply with the order passed by this Court by which petitioner was directed to obtain prior permission of this Court after placing relevant documents for consideration fo this Court before finalizing the purchase transaction. It is submitted that in view of such situation, petitioner was forced to enter into the transaction of purchase of two flats on 25^th January 2011 in the sum of Rs.2,63,70,000/- and on 25^th April 2011 in the sum of Rs.1,02,60,000/- respectively. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant also placed reliance on the valuation report in support of his submission that after purchase of both these properties, the rate of those properties have gone up substantially which would be in the interest of the minor.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant/petitioner seeks condonation of delay in filing this motion and tenders unconditional apology on instructions for non compliance of part of order dated 15^th July 2010 and prays for post facto approval to the purchase of properties described in amended prayer clause (c ).

¶25

On prusal of affidavit and documents in support, on consideration of the first submission made by the learned counsel, I am of the view that delay in purchasing the flats in the name of the minor is satisfactorily

¶26

3/4

¶27

Asmita

¶28

.. 4 .. 39-NMS-1460/12

¶29

explained in affidavit in support. Non compliance of part of the said order in not obtaining prior approval and not depositing the amount in fixed deposit is also explained. Explanation is accepted.

¶30

Learned counsel submits that after purchase of the flats and carrying out expensive interiors/renovation, no amount is balance which can be invested in fixed deposit as directed by this Court. Explanation rendered by the petitioner in affidavit in support is accepted.

¶31

Notice of motion is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) (b) and amended prayer clause ( c).

¶32

It is made clear that flat purchased in the name of minor shall continue to remain in the name of minor and shall not be sold and/or encumbered by the petitioner without obtaining prior permission of this Court.

¶33

No order as to costs.

¶34

( R.D.DHANUKA, J.)

¶35

4/4

¶36

Asmita

Ashesh P. Goradia v. Chintan Ashesh Goradia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashesh P. Goradia v. Chintan Ashesh Goradia

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs Rakesh N. Tripathi and Nagendranath R. Tripathi

M/S.Vijay and Haresh Corpn.and Anr. Vs Ms.Veekaylal Investment Pvt.Ltd. and Ors. and Ila Vipin Pandya

Dena Bank Vs Apple Finance Ltd. and Anr.

Chandrahas Bomaiyya Rai Vs Shashikala Damodar Shetty (Caveator)

Bakhtawar Lentin and Ors. Vs Mrs.Lyla Daruis Jehangir

Prateek Nareshkumar Sharda Vs Pushpa Buadutt Sharda