Allowed

M/S. Religare Finvest Ltd. v. Shakuntala Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors. and Kalpana Hemang Bhagat (Intervener/Applicant)

Bombay HC19 Oct 2015CHS/1142/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chamber summons in execution proceedings granting interim attachment over a flat was served. The intervener proved clear title to the property, establishing it did not belong to the judgment debtors. The court lifted the attachment and disposed of the summary application accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Chamber summons made absolute to lift attachment over flat No.202; original documents returned; application disposed.

M/S. Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs Shakuntala Wire… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1 CHS.1142/2015-EXA.1053/2015(48)

¶2

mnm

¶3

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

¶4

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1142 OF 2015 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 1053 OF 2015

¶5

Kalpana H. Bhagat ...Intervener/Applicant

¶6

In the matter between: M/s. Religare Fivest Ltd. ...Claimant Vs. M/s. Shakuntala Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Ms. Hina A. Mody for the Applicant/Intervener

¶8

CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 19^TH OCTOBER, 2015

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

The chamber summons was served upon the judgment creditor. The chamber summons came on board for adinterim relief on 4^th September, 2015 when the judgment creditor was represented by its Advocate. The chamber summons came to be adjourned to 11^th September, 2015. It did not reach hearing. The applicant filed a praecipe to keep the matter on board today. The applicant has given notice of this application to be moved at 3 p.m today to the Advocate for the judgment creditor / claimant. It has been served and signed by them.

¶11

2 CHS.1142/2015-EXA.1053/2015(48)

¶12

No affidavit in reply is filed.

¶13

The applicant / intervener has sought to raise the attachment levied over flat No.202, 2^nd floor, B-42, Yogi Kiran CHS Ltd., Yogi Nagar, Borivali (W), Mumbai – 400 091. The applicant claims that it belongs to her. The applicant is not related to the judgment debtor.

¶14

The applicant has produced the original agreement dated 29^th May, 1981 of the builder Vijay Nagar Corporation with one Mukesh Parikh in respect of flat No.202 on the 2^nd floor of the suit building in Yogi Nagar. The applicant has purchased the attached flat from the said Mukesh Parikh on 25^th April, 2000 under an agreement of that date. The applicant has produced share certificate initially issued to Mukesh Parikh on 15^th February, 1987 which has been transferred to her name on 14^th March, 2001.

¶15

The applicant has given the said flat on license initially to one Prakash Mantri under a registered agreement dated 5^th July, 2013 which is registered on that date and on which the registration charges have been paid. The applicant has thereafter licensed the attached flat to the wife of defendant No.3 and the daughter-in-law of defendant No.2 under the registered license agreement dated 23^rd June, 2014 which is

¶16

3 CHS.1142/2015-EXA.1053/2015(48)

¶17

registered on that day and on which also registration charges have been paid. That agreement has been thereafter extended.

¶18

The applicant has made out a clear title to the suit property. The suit property is seen not to belong to the judgment debtors / defendants in the suit. The applicant is not shown to be related to the judgment debtors. No collusion is found between the applicant and the judgment debtors. The attachment deserves to be lifted.

¶19

Hence the chamber summons is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b).

¶20

Original documents produced by the applicant are returned to the applicant/ intervener.

¶21

Chamber summons is disposed off accordingly.

¶22

(ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

¶23

4 CHS.1142/2015-EXA.1053/2015(48)

¶24

CERTIFICATE

¶25

Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed Judgment /order.

M/S. Religare Finvest Ltd. v. Shakuntala Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors. and Kalpana Hemang Bhagat (Intervener/Applicant)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Religare Finvest Ltd. v. Shakuntala Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors. and Kalpana Hemang Bhagat (Intervener/Applicant)

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

Hasmukh Kuwarji Shah Vs the Bombay Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

D.N. Nagar Shree Ashtavinayak Co.Op.Soc.Hsg.Soc.Ltd. Vs M/S. Axay Raj Build Well Pvt.Ltd.

Shridhar Vasant Kulkarni Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation

Nitin Gandhi and Anr. Vs Dinyar Pheroz Bubash and Ors.

Shri Ramesh Ramlautan Jaiswal Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Shri Vikas Gangaram Ayare and Ors. Vs Smt. Vijaya Shantaram Sawant and Ors.