Dismissed

Hemant Hareshwar Chogale and 4 Ors. v. M/S. Shree Swastik Associates and 8 Ors.

Bombay HC28 Jul 2014NMS/549/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an interlocutory application for appointment of a receiver and injunction regarding a flat held as security, this court dismissed the notice of motion on withdrawal of the application with liberty to amend the plaint.

What did the court decide?

Notice of Motion dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to take out a fresh application after amending the plaint.

Hemant Hareshwar Chogale and 4 Ors. Vs M/S. Shree… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2014)

nms 549-2014.doc

1/2

sat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 549 OF 2014 IN SUIT NO. 25 OF 2014

¶7

Hemant Hareshwar Chogale & Ors. vs.

¶8

M/s.Shree Swastik Associates & Ors.

¶9

…Applicants / Plaintiffs

¶10

...Defendants

¶11

Mr.R.S. Yadav for Plaintiffs.

¶12

Mr.Naushad Engineer i/b. M/s.Pravin Mehta & Mithi & Co. for Defendant Nos.1 to 7.

¶13

Mr.Tushar Goradia for Defendant Nos.8 and 9.

¶14

CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.

¶15

28 JULY 2014

¶16

P.C. :

¶17

The Notice of Motion is taken out in a specific performance suit for appointment of Court Receiver and injunction in respect of a flat which is agreed to be handed over to the Plaintiffs as a security for the performance of another MOU of the same date between the parties.

¶18

2 The matter was heard at some length. It was pointed out in the course of the hearing by the learned Counsel for Defendants Nos.8 and 9, who are owners of the flat in respect of which the injunctive relief is sought, that the flat is claimed be a security for the performance of another MOU of the same date between the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.1 to 7; that this security is purported to have been created by an MOU executed between the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.8 and 9; and that there is no substantive relief claimed against Defendant Nos.8 and 9 in respect of the flat; and that in the premises, no injunctive relief can be sought against Defendant Nos.8 and 9.

¶19

3 After this was pointed out to the Court, learned Counsel for the

nms 549-2014.doc

2/2

sat

Plaintiffs sought leave to withdraw the present Notice of Motion with liberty to take out a fresh Notice of Motion after amending the plaint and incorporating substantive reliefs against Defendant Nos.8 and 9 in respect of the MOU executed between the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.8 and 9 on 23 February 2013.

¶24

4 The Notice of Motion is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed.

¶25

(S.C. Gupte, J.)

Hemant Hareshwar Chogale and 4 Ors. v. M/S. Shree Swastik Associates and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemant Hareshwar Chogale and 4 Ors. v. M/S. Shree Swastik Associates and 8 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

Razia Rahim Kollampurambil and Anr. Vs Kishor H. Joshi and Zebel K. Joshi

C.S. Lodha Vs M/S. Asa Projects Pvt. Ltd.

anjan deviprasad kejriwal Vs anil deviprasad kejriwal and 11 Ors.

Bhaveen Ramesh Shah Vs Radhika P. Ranade and Ors.

Aditya Enterprises and Anr. Vs Audumbar Chhaya Chs. Ltd. and 16 Ors.

Karan Housing and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Juhu Prarthana Chs Ltd. and 9 Ors.