Disposed

Shri Shyam Sundar Radheshyam Agarwal v. M/S Sanghvi Developers Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director, Mr. Popat Dhoka and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Jun 2015WP/8368/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order allowing Respondent No.13 to implead in revenue proceedings, citing late filing and lack of locus standi. With all parties' consent, the High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for de-novo consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; matter remanded to Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division for de-novo consideration of impleadment application.

Shri Shyam Sundar Radheshyam Agarwal Vs M/S… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

10.06.2015

¶2

WPST-7184-15.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.7184 OF 2015

¶5

Shri. Shyam Sundar Radheshyam Agarwal .. Petitioner Versus M/s Sanghvi Developers Pvt Ltd. and others .. Respondents

¶6

¶7

Mr. S. D. Patil, for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Deepak Shukla i/by Vinod Mistry & Co., for the Respondent No.13. Mrs. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP for the Respondent Nos.9, 10 & 12.

¶9

CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 10^th JUNE, 2015

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1. The order dated 22.01.2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai allowing the application for impleadment filed by the Respondent No.13 in RTS No.189 of 2013 is taken exception to by way of the above Petition. The said order has been challenged on the ground that the application of the Respondent No.13 was filed at the fag end of the hearing of the said RTS proceedings, which proceedings relates to the dispute as regards mutation entry between Petitioner and the other Respondents. The locus-standi of the Respondent No.13 to intervene in the said RTS proceedings is also questioned by the Petitioner. In the above Petition, a notice came to be issued on 31.03.2015

1 of 3

BGP .

10.06.2015

WPST-7184-15.doc

¶16

and interim stay to the further proceedings being conducted by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division came to be granted.

¶17

2. On notice being issued appearance is put up on behalf of the Respondent No.13. The Respondent No.13 has filed a praecipe bearing No.A-3141/945/2015 through his Solicitors Vinod Mistry & Company for the matter being taken up on board and being disposed of by setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter back to the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division for a de-novo consideration of the application for impleadment. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.13 today also tendered the affidavit of Respondent No.13 Shri. Alex alias Sunny George D'Silva, wherein paragraph 8 reads thus. The same is reproduced herein for the sake of ready reference.

¶18

“I also have No Objection for the setting aside of the impugned order by this Hon'ble Court and the matter to be remanded back for fresh hearing and disposal after hearing all the parties and considering the claims of all the parties concerned including that of myself.”

¶19

3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. S. D. Patil has no

¶20

objection to the said course of action being followed. However, he contends that the issue of maintainability of the application for impleadment may also be kept open. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.13 has no objection to the same. Hence, in view of the

2 of 3

BGP .

10.06.2015

WPST-7184-15.doc

¶25

praecipe dated 09.06.2015 as also the affidavit of the Respondent No.13 dated 07.05.2015 the impugned order is by the consent of the Respondent No.13 quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division for a de-novo consideration of the application for impleadment filed by the Respondent No.13. Needless to state that the said application would be tried by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division on its own merits and in accordance with law. The contentions of the parties are kept open including the contention as regards the issue of maintainability of the said application which issue would be adjudicated upon by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division with the other issues that would arise for consideration whilst adjudicating upon the said application for impleadment. The said application be decided within eight weeks from date. With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶26

[R.M. SAVANT, J]

¶27

3 of 3

¶28

BGP .

Shri Shyam Sundar Radheshyam Agarwal v. M/S Sanghvi Developers Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director, Mr. Popat Dhoka and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Shyam Sundar Radheshyam Agarwal v. M/S Sanghvi Developers Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director, Mr. Popat Dhoka and Ors.

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

Smt. Nalini Jaywant Dhodi @ Hathi Vs M/S. Muskan Builders and Developers and Ors.

Mrs. Shakuntala Bhaurao Bhoye, Vs Tahasildar

Ramchandra Vithal Tapale and Anr. Vs Sou. Chinnabai Vithal Tapale (Decd) and Ors.

Shraddha Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd. and Ors. Vs the Mumbai District Central Co.Op. Bank Ltd.

Tulshiram Nivrutti Jadhav (Decd) through Lrs and Another Vs Bhagwat Keru Chavan (Decd) through Lrs

Mr. Laxman Chandbarao More and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.