Dismissed

Afzal a.F.Oomerbhai and Ors. v. Majid a.Oomerbhai 3 Ors. and Farida Aresh Aspandiar Irani and 2 Ors. (Applicants)

Bombay HC6 Aug 2015NMS/1382/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a notice of motion. The applicants sought to raise a grievance about the Court Receiver's proposed stand in a related RAE suit before the Small Causes Court. The Court held such grievance is not maintainable here; objections must be raised in the Small Causes Court via a Written Statement.

What did the court decide?

The Notice of Motion was disposed of; applicants were at liberty to raise objections in the Small Causes Court.

Afzal a.F.Oomerbhai and Ors. Vs Majid… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

nmsl 213 of 2015 .sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.2113 OF 2015 IN

¶3

SUIT NO.3424 OF 1991

¶4

Farida Aresh Aspandiar Irani and Ors.	…	Applicants
in the matter between
Afzal Abdul Sattar Oomerbhoy and Anr.	…	Plaintiffs
versus
Majid Ahmedbhai Oomerbhoy and Ors.	…	Defendants

¶5

Mr. V.R.Dhond, Senior Advocate with Ms. F. Behramkamdin i/by M/s. FZB and Associates, for Applicants.

¶6

Ms. Sonal i/by M/s. Thakore Jariwala and Associates, for Defendant No.1. Mr. S. Thakkar i/by M/s. Shailesh Thakkar and Co., for Mrs. N. Ommerbhoy and Hena Oomerbhoy, Legal Heir of Deceased Defendant No.1.

¶7

CORAM: S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.

¶8

DATE: 6^th AUGUST, 2015

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

Mentioned. Not on board. By consent, taken on board for final

¶11

hearing.

¶12

After disposal of the above Suit, the Applicants filed an Application seeking retrospective leave of this Court for having continued to prosecute RAE Suit No.809/3046 of 1982 before the Small Causes Court,

¶13

Mumbai when the Court Receiver had been appointed and was in possession

¶14

of Flat No.4, 1^st Floor, Dhunabad 106, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai – 400

¶15

026 (the Suit Property).

¶16

1/2

¶17

ssp

¶18

nmsl 213 of 2015 .sxw

¶19

Though, the parties at the hearing of the Application had made submissions as regards the issue as to whether the Court Receiver continued to be in possession of the Suit Property or stood discharged the same was not decided by this Court whilst granting leave as prayed, since the same was not relevant for the purpose of deciding the Application.

¶20

By the present Application, the Applicants have made a grievance as to the stand which the Court Receiver proposes to take in his Written Statement qua his possession of the Suit Property, which is yet to be filed before the Small Causes Court, Mumbai in RAE Suit No.809/3046 of 1982.

¶21

In my view, the grievance of the Applicants qua the stand proposed to be taken by the Court Receiver cannot be entertained by this Court. However, the Applicant shall be at liberty to raise its objections to the stand taken by the Court Receiver qua his possession of the Suit Property in his proposed Written Statement before the Small Causes Court, which the Small Causes Court shall decide on merits.

¶22

The Notice of Motion is accordingly disposed of.

¶23

( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. )

¶24

2/2

¶25

ssp

Afzal a.F.Oomerbhai and Ors. v. Majid a.Oomerbhai 3 Ors. and Farida Aresh Aspandiar Irani and 2 Ors. (Applicants)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afzal a.F.Oomerbhai and Ors. v. Majid a.Oomerbhai 3 Ors. and Farida Aresh Aspandiar Irani and 2 Ors. (Applicants)

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

Pct International , Inc. Vs Khalil Shaikh Prop. of Space Link Trading Corporation

Laxmikant Venkatesh Patange. Vs Rajaram Venkatesh Patange

M.S.Devadiga and Ors. Vs R. P. Pujari and Anr.

Marinetech Co.Ltd Vs M.v.Salus

Godrej Consumer Products Limited Vs Dhanraj Nawanath Sathe and Ors.

Godrej Consumer Products Limited Vs Gnyaneshwar Industries and Anr.