Mrs. Hira Sorab Pithawalla v. Smt. Sushila Madhusudan Kamath and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Dec 2015WP/9468/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court disposed of multiple writ petitions and civil applications by accepting consent terms set by the parties. The writ petition regarding a Rent Act matter was settled, an application to amend the petition was allowed, and an application for additional evidence was disposed of as the main matter was settled. One petition was allowed to be withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of Writ Petition 1848 of 2000 and Civil App 4159/9468 on consent terms; Civil App 3167 of 2015 allowed for amendment; no order as to costs.

Mrs. Hira Sorab Pithawalla Vs Smt. Sushila… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

903.WP 1848.00.doc

¶2

ingale

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1848 OF 2000 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3167 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4159 OF 2000 ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9468 OF 2003

¶6

Mrs.Hira Sorab Pithawalla .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M.J.Kamat since deceased by his legal heirs & representative Smt.Sushila Madhusudan Kamat and others .. Respondents

¶9

And

¶10

Rajendra Bothmal Singhvi .. Invervenor/Applicant

¶11

Mr.M.V.Sawant, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Pankaj Sutar i/b M/s. Jayakar & Partners, Advocate for Respondents. Mr.Rajendra Bothmal Singhvi, Applicant in-person.

¶13

CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATED : 02^nd DECEMBER, 2015

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

Writ Petition No.1848 of 2000

¶16

. Heard Mr.M.V.Sawant, learned Counsel for the

¶17

petitioner, Mr.Pankaj Sutar, learned Counsel for the respondents and

¶18

Mr.Rajendra Bothmal Singhvi, applicant who appears in-person.

¶19

1/4

¶20

903.WP 1848.00.doc

¶21

Matter pertains to Rent Act and as regular Court presided over by the Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.M.Savant has passed order 'not before me', office has listed this matter before me in view of administrative order passed by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice.

¶22

Learned Counsel appearing for the parties have tendered consent terms dated 02/12/2015 duly signed by the petitioner and her advocate as also by Mr.Sanjiv Kamat, constituted attorney of respondents No. 1 to 5 and their advocate and applicant- Rajendra Bothmal Singhvi, who appears in-person. The same are taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. The petitioner's advocate states that petitioner's grand daughter and constituted attorney – Ms.Havovi Merzban Sukhadwala is present in the Court. The respondent's advocate states that Mr.Sanjiv Kamat- constituted attorney of respondents No. 1 to 5 is present in the Court. The applicant-intervenor who appears in-person is also present in the Court. Learned Counsel appearing for the parties submit that Petition is amicably settled in terms of the consent terms and the same may be disposed of by accepting undertakings given therein.

¶23

After perusing the consent terms, I am satisfied that the controversy between the parties is lawfully settled in terms of the consent terms.

¶24

In view thereof, by consent of the parties, Petition is disposed of in terms of the consent terms. The undertakings given

¶25

2/4

¶26

903.WP 1848.00.doc

¶27

by the respective parties are accepted.

¶28

Rule is disposed of in terms of the consent terms with no

¶29

order as to costs.

¶30

Civil Application no. 3167 of 2015

¶31

By consent of the parties, Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) with no order as to costs. Amendment in the main Petition shall be carried out forthwith.

¶32

Civil Application no. 4159 of 2000

¶33

In view of disposal of the main Petition, this Civil Application for production of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly.

¶34

Writ Petition No. 9468 of 2003

¶35

Heard Mr.M.V.Sawant, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Pankaj Sutar, learned Counsel for the respondents. and Mr.Rajendra Bothmal Singhvi, applicant who appears in-person. 2. Though matter pertains to Rent Act and as regular Court presiding over by Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.M.Savant has passed order 'not before me', office has listed this matter before me in view of administrative order passed by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice.

¶36

3/4

¶37

903.WP 1848.00.doc

¶38

Mr. Sawant seeks permission to withdraw this Petition. On the motion made by Mr.Sawant, Petition is allowed to be withdrawn. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.

¶39

(R.G.KETKAR, J.)

¶40

4/4

Mrs. Hira Sorab Pithawalla v. Smt. Sushila Madhusudan Kamath and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Hira Sorab Pithawalla v. Smt. Sushila Madhusudan Kamath 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

Ramesh Jamsing Patil Vs Gulabsing Ramsing Kachava and Ors.

Ganesh Vishnu Tawar Since Deceased and Ors. Vs Anandrao Jagaru Jamale and Ors.

Bushra Khatun Usmanali Siddiqui Vs Yusufali Usmanali Siddiqui

Mrs. Hira Sorab Pithawalla Vs M.J. Kamat

Mahendra Mehta Vs Kaushik Pandya

Balaso Bhupal Terdale and Ors. Vs Devgonda Shivgonda Patil and Ors.