Allowed

M/S. Patel Auto Engineering Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms. Havista Steel Wool and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Apr 2014CAW/685/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay allowed an application filed by an applicant to develop a specific plot. The court accepted undertakings given by the applicant's directors to vacate the plot if a main writ petition is dismissed, thereby protecting the respondents.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was allowed to develop the plot subject to the accepted undertakings to vacate the plot if the main writ petition is dismissed.

M/S. Patel Auto Engineering Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ms. Havista Steel Wool and Ors. — Bombay HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

ash

caw-685.14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.685 OF 2014 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.8576 OF 2007

¶6

M/s. Patel Auto Engineering Company. .. Applicant Vs M/s. Havista Steel Wool and Another. .. Respondents

¶7

Ms. Anuprita D. Nalavade i/by Shri P.G. Sawant and Shari Manohar Vasu Shetty for the Applicant.

¶8

Shri Taksh Patel i/by M/s.Malvi Ranchoddas & Co for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶9

Shri P.P. Chavan i/by M/s. Navdeep Vora & Associates for Respondent No.3.

¶10

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ DATED : 21ST APRIL 2014

¶11

P.C.

¶12

. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Applicant, learned counsel appearing for the first and second Respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the third Respondent.

¶13

The present Application has been filed by the Applicant who is the second Respondent in the main Writ Petition filed by the first and second Respondents in this Application. The Rule was issued on the Writ Petition on 21^st January 2009. Clause 5 of the order granting Rule reads thus:

ash

caw-685.14

“5. Liberty to the learned counsel for the petitioner to get the Civil Application circulated after seeking instructions from the client whether he is prepared to give an undertaking to the effect that he will develop the plot in question at his risk as to cost and consequences and undertakes to this court that he would vacate the plot without claiming any equity in the matter in case this petition is dismissed.”

¶18

This Application was heard on the earlier date. The Applicant has filed undertakings of Shri Mukesh J. Patel, one of its Directors, Shri Jawaharlal K. Patel, one of its Directors, Shri Meenoti Mukesh Patel, one of its Directors and Shri Mukesh J. Patel, again one of its Directors in his capacity as the authorized signatory of the Applicant which have been affirmed on 16^th April 2014. The said undertakings have been filed on behalf of the Applicant by the said Directors who have been duly authorized to give undertakings in terms of the resolution of the Board of Directors of the Applicant in its meeting held on 9^th April 2014.

¶19

In view of these undertakings, even if the Applicant is permitted to develop the said plot in terms of the prayer clause (a), the first and second Respondents as well as the third Respondent will be adequately protected in the event of the first and second Respondents succeeding in the main Writ Petition.

ash

caw-685.14

5. Hence, we pass the following order:

¶24

ORDER :

¶25

(a) The aforesaid undertakings affirmed on 16^th April 2014 are collectively marked as “X” for identification. The undertakings are accepted;

¶26

(b) In view of the undertakings and the statements made therein, the Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Accordingly, the Applicant will be entitled to develop the plot in question in terms of the undertakings and subject to final outcome of the main Writ Petition;

¶27

¶28

(A.A. SAYED, J)

M/S. Patel Auto Engineering Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms. Havista Steel Wool and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Patel Auto Engineering Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms. Havista Steel Wool and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mehul Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd, through Director, Mr. Dhaval Kiritbhai Patel Vs the Exeucitve Engineer, National Highway Division ,Solapur and Ors.

Mehul Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd, through Director, Mr. Dhaval Kiritbhai Patel Vs the Executive Engineer, National Highway Division and Ors.

Mehul Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd, through Director, Mr. Dhaval Kiritbhai Patel Vs the Executive Engineer, National Highway Division and Ors.

Kolhapur Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner Vs Mahanagarpalika Karmachari Sangh, through President and General Secretary and Ors.

Mr. Jeetpratap Singh Vs the Assistant Director, Town Planning Dept, Ulhas Nagar Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shri. Prahlad Ramhari Nalawade and Ors. Vs Smt. Namrata Nandkumar Mayekar and Ors.