Disposed

Bai Khatija Yusufi Basta-Wala and Anr. v. Mrs. Fatimabai Abdeali Dohadwala and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Aug 2015S/603/1981

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiffs and Defendants settled a suit regarding possession of a tenanted shop in Mumbai. The Court accepted consent terms involving a Court Receiver and a Memorandum of Understanding, discharging the receiver and disposing of the suit.

What did the court decide?

Suit disposed of in accordance with consent terms; Court Receiver discharged; costs borne equally; decree to be drawn up.

1.The Suit is settled. Consent Terms are tendered. These are signed by the 1st Plaintiff and by the three heirs and legal representatives of the deceased 2nd Plaintiff. The original 3rd Plaintiff has passed away leaving no heirs. The Consent Terms are also signed by Defendant No. 2 and by the sole proprietor of M/s Mama Traders, one Aliasgar Fakhruddin Dohadwala, who though not a party to the Suit, claims through Defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 has passed away. The 1st Plaintiff and the heirs and legal representatives of the 2nd Plaintiff, the 2nd Defendant and Mr. Dohadwala are all present in Court. The Consent Terms are also signed by the Advocates for the parties. The Consent Terms are

2.The Consent Terms specifically refer to a Memorandum of Understanding dated 28th March 2015. The original of this Memorandum of Understanding on Rs. 100/- stamp paper and duly executed by the parties thereto is also tendered with a request that it be taken on file. Accordingly, the original Memorandum of Understanding is taken on record and marked “X1” for identification.

3.It is clarified that every application for the certified copy of this order or for the Consent Terms (or both) shall also necessarily include, whether or not the application so specifies, a certified copy of the Memorandum of Understanding as well.

4.The Court Receiver was appointed in this matter in respect of the tenanted shop premises referred to in clause 5 of the Consent Terms being Shop No. 246, Janjikar Street, Near Jama Masjid, Crawford Market, Mumbai – 400 002. This is the shop in which M/s. Mama Traders is carrying on the business apparently as a licensee. The order appointing the Court Receiver is dated 13th December 1983. The Court Receiver has taken possession of the first and second floor of tenanted shop premises and has joint possession with M/s Mama Traders of the ground floor of the tenanted shop premises. The Consent Terms specify that the ground floor is in the joint and equal possession of M/s. Mama Traders and the Court Receiver.

5.It is agreed that the Court Receiver is to stand discharged upon the filing of these Consent Terms without passing accounts. So ordered. The costs, charges and expenses of the Court Receiver are to be borne equally by the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. The Court Receiver may adjust any funds presently in his hands against these costs, charges and expenses. The balance, if any, after such adjustment is to be paid equally by both sides. The parties have specifically agreed to this as well before me today.

Bai Khatija Yusufi Basta-Wala and Anr. v. Mrs. Fatimabai Abdeali Dohadwala and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bai Khatija Yusufi Basta-Wala and Anr. v. Mrs. Fatimabai Abdeali Dohadwala 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

Bhavna Santosh Walzade Vs Santosh Walzade (Deceased)

Lalitadevi Sitaram Gupta Vs Sitaram Gupta (Deceased)

Neeta Rudraji Patankar Vs Tejas Ajit Rane

Ms. Khairunissa Abdul Karim Shaikh Vs Nanasaheb Daulatrao Dubal and Sunanda Nanasaheb and 3 Ors. (Prop. Defendant)

Rajesh Darshanlal Bindra Vs Jasvinder C Singh and 2 Ors.

Suresh J. Tripathi and Anr. Vs Sheela Rakesh Awasthi (Caveator)