Allowed

Bhaveen Ramesh Shah v. Radhika P. Ranade and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Jul 2014NMS/743/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application to withdraw a notice of motion for a receiver and injunction, the plaintiff sought liberty to file a fresh motion after impleading new parties. The court allowed the withdrawal with such liberty, noting third-party rights had been created by a respondent.

What did the court decide?

Notice of Motion dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh motion after amending plaint and impleading new parties.

Bhaveen Ramesh Shah Vs Radhika P. Ranade and Ors. — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2014)

nms 743-2010.doc

1/2

sat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 743 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO. 3489 OF 2006

¶6

Bhaveen Ramesh Shah …Applicant / Plaintiff

¶7

vs.

¶8

Radhika Prabhakar Ranade & Ors. ...Defendants

¶9

Ms.Neeta Solanki i/b. M/s.Kiran Jain & Co. for Plaintiff. Mr.A.R. Shaikh for Defendant Nos.3 to 5.

¶10

Mr.Sajkhare, Senior Advocate with Mr.T.K. Jadhav i/b. Mr.S.D. Mishra for Defendant No.7.

¶11

CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.

¶12

28 JULY 2014

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Plaintiff in a specific performance suit seeking appointment of Court Receiver and injunction in respect of the suit property, which is agreed to be sold by Defendant Nos.1 to 5 to the Plaintiff.

¶15

2 It appears that during the pendency of the suit, the property has been transferred by Defendant Nos.1 to 5 to Defendant No.7. The Plaintiff has accordingly impleaded Defendant No.7, as a party Defendant, to the present suit and sought relief against it. It appears that during the pendency of the suit, Defendant No.7 has constructed a building on the suit property and has created third party rights in favour of various flat purchasers.

¶16

3 Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, in the premises, seeks leave to withdraw the Notice of Motion with liberty to take out a fresh Notice of Motion after amending her plaint and impleading the flat purchasers, as party Defendants, to the present suit.

nms 743-2010.doc

2/2

sat

4 Mr.Sakhakre, learned Counsel for Defendant No.7 opposes to the liberty being granted on the ground that there is absolutely no merit in the Plaintiff’s application and no liberty should be reserved to take out proceedings.

¶21

5 Considering the fact that third party rights have been created after the present Notice of Motion is taken out by the Plaintiff, the application of the Plaintiff for withdrawal of the Notice of Motion with liberty to take out a fresh Motion after impleading the parties, in whose favour rights have been created by Defendant No.7, seems to be reasonable.

¶22

6 Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty, as prayed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Bhaveen Ramesh Shah v. Radhika P. Ranade and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaveen Ramesh Shah v. Radhika P. Ranade and Ors.

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

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.

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.

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