Disposed

Mr. Bipin Bhogilal Shah v. Lalita B.Shah and Ors. Manesh Power Equipment Pvt.Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Aug 2015CRR/383/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court Receiver ordered the release of accepted maintenance dues of Rs. 2,84,962/-. Disputed claims regarding interest, repairs, and other bills were deferred pending satisfactory explanations from the Society. A prayer to reject the report was expressly rejected. Funds were directed to cover pension maintenance and car parking for a wheelchair-bound resident upon application.

What did the court decide?

Directed to release Rs. 2,84,962/- for maintenance after deducting prior payments and Rs. 6,094/- for cable charges.

Mr. Bipin Bhogilal Shah Vs Lalita B.Shah and Ors… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

62-CRR-383-14.DOC

¶2

Shephali

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT NO. 383 OF 2014

¶4

IN

¶5

TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 438 OF 2002

¶6

Mr. Bipin Bhogilal Shah

¶7

…Plaintiff

¶8

Versus
Lalita B. Shah & Ors. Manesh Power Equipment ...Defendants
Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
And

¶9

Manesh Power Equipment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.…Respondents

¶10

Ms. K. C. Nichani, i/b Amit Shah, for the Respondent No. 1
Mr. Piyush Raheja, i/b Keystone Partners, for Defendant No 2.
Mr. N. A. Bandodkar, IInd Assistant to Court Receiver, is present.

¶11

CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:10th August 2015

¶12

PC:-

¶13

1.Heard. Ms. Nichani, learned Advocate for the Respondent
No. 1, the agent of the Court Receiver states that her client accepts
the society’s claim towards maintenance for Rs.2,84,962/-. The
amount has already been paid by the 1st Respondent to the Court
Receiver. The 1st Respondent claims to have paid in excess.
Consequently, the Receiver is directed to release an mount of Rs.

¶14

1 of 3

¶15

62-CRR-383-14.DOC

¶16

2,84,962/- to the Society less any amount already paid under the
Maintenance Account.

¶17

2.The interest claimed of Rs. 4,98,335/-, the repairs claim of
Rs. 1,55,842/-, the claim towards “new repair account” of Rs.
6,85,785/-, the claim of Rs. 9,245/- as water charges and the claim
of Rs. 11,738/- as additional bills for 1st April 2013 to 30th June
2014 are all disputed. Ms. Nichani, on instructions, accepts,
however, the cable television charges of Rs. 6,094/-. This amount
will, therefore, be also paid by the Receiver to the Society.

¶18

3.As regards the other amounts disputed by the 1st
Respondent, these are presently not to be released by the Court
Receiver. I must note that the Society was directed to file an
Affidavit giving an explanation as to these other claims. The
Affidavit that it has filed is completely unsatisfactory and does not
even begin to answer the queries raised. It will be open to the
Society to approach the Court Receiver and submit the necessary
clarifications for which the Receiver will make a supplementary
report seeking directions from the Court.

¶19

4.For the present, prayer (a) of this Report is disposed of in the
above terms.

¶20

5. Prayer clause (b) of the Report is expressly rejected.

¶21

6.The Receiver may encash the fixed deposits as necessary for
making payments to the Society.

¶22

2 of 3

¶23

62-CRR-383-14.DOC

¶24

7.Ms. Nichani states that the Respondent has paid an ad-hoc
amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month although he is required only to
pay the exact society dues which are less than the monthly royalty.
She requests that the surplus be adjusted against future bills. The
Court Receiver is directed to make payment to the Society of the
bills for the period from 1st July 2014 onwards initially out of the
excess amounts, if any, available in his hands.

¶25

8.Costs of the Report quantified at Rs. 3,000/- to be recovered
funds available in the Court Receiver’s hands.

¶26

9.As regards car parking, the Society has, in its Affidavit,
stated that the Society allots car parking space on chronological
basis as per its waiting list. It is not possible to compel the society to
make an exception for the 1st Respondent. However, given that the
1st Respondent is wheelchair-bound, it is open to the 1st
Respondent to make a suitable application to the Society in this
respect.

¶27

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶28

3 of 3

Mr. Bipin Bhogilal Shah v. Lalita B.Shah and Ors. Manesh Power Equipment Pvt.Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Bipin Bhogilal Shah v. Lalita B.Shah and Ors. Manesh Power Equipment Pvt.Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neela Vilas Shinde Vs Geeta Patel D'Souza and 4 Ors.

Kanchanben Parmanand Shah Vs Mayur Shah and Sudershana Alias Kalpana Shah

Behroze Neville Pithawalla Vs Neville Mehernosh Pithawalla

Aban Homa Petit and Anr. Vs Naryosang D Cassad.

Vijeyata Raju Jedia Vs Raju Banwarilal Jedia

Bharti Ramesh Chhabria and 4 Ors. Vs Ashok Arjandas Kalra and 4 Ors.