Allowed

M/S. Blossum Estates v. Deven Ramjibhai Raghani and 19 Ors.

Bombay HC24 Oct 2016S/822/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court settled a suit regarding a specified property between the Plaintiff and Defendants 1 and 2 upon acceptance of consent terms. The suit was dismissed against other defendants, and the Notice of Motion was declared infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Suit settled as between Plaintiff and Defendants 1 and 2; suit dismissed against Defendants 3 to 19; Consent Terms taken on record; Notice of Motion disposed of as infructuous.

M/S. Blossum Estates Vs Deven Ramjibhai Raghani and 19 Ors. — Partition | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

907-NMS2340-16.DOC

¶2

SHEPHALI

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 822 OF 2016

¶4

WITH

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2340 OF 2016

¶6

Blossum Estates…Plaintiff
Versus
Deven Ramjibhai Raghani & 19 Ors.…Defendants

¶7

Ms. Shweeta Doshi, i/b M/s. Jhangiani Narula Associates, for the
Plaintiffs.

¶8

Mr. R. A. Shah, Ms. Anchal Singh, for Defendant No. 1.

¶9

Ms. Triveni Joshi, i/b M/s. Markand Gandhi & Co., for Defendant
No. 2.

¶10

Mr. Santosh Patil, i/b Rajesh P. Khobragade, for Defendants Nos. 17
& 18.

¶11

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 24th October 2016

¶12

PC:-

¶13

1.The Suit is settled as between the Plaintiff and Defendants
Nos. 1 and 2. Consent Terms are tendered. These Consent Terms
are signed by the partner of the Plaintiff’s and by the 1st and 2nd
Defendants as also by their respective Advocates. The Suit is
dismissed against Defendants Nos. 3 to 19.

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

24th October 2016

¶16

907-NMS2340-16.DOC

¶17

2.The Consent Terms cover a specified property. The
description is set out in Schedule I. It is clarified that the Consent
Terms extend only to this property and all rights and contentions are
left open regarding other properties or areas, about which there may
be a dispute in the parties inter se. The compromise of this Suit will,
therefore, not affect the parties’ rights and contentions in respect of
other properties or areas, specifically the remaining area
admeasuring 272 square meters.

¶18

3.I have seen the Consent Terms and they are in order. The
Consent Terms are taken on record and marked “X” for
identification. The undertakings in the Consent Terms, if any, are
accepted as undertakings to the Court.

¶19

4.The Suit is disposed of in accordance with the Consent
Terms as between Plaintiff and Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and
restricted to the properties specifically mentioned in Schedule 1.
There will be no order as to costs.

¶20

5.The drawn up decree is dispensed with. However, for the
purpose of implementation of these Consent Terms, should the
parties require a drawn up decree, they will be entitled to apply to
the Department for one without having to make a separate
application in that behalf and on production of an authenticated
copy of this order. Drawn up decree is to be strictly and only in
accordance with these Consent Terms.

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

24th October 2016

¶23

907-NMS2340-16.DOC

¶24

6.Leave to the Plaintiff to amend the cause title without need of
reverification to correct the description of the 2nd Defendant,
which is a limited liability partnership (LLP). Amendment to be
carried out forthwith in Court.

¶25

7. All previous ad-interim orders are vacated forthwith.

¶26

8. In view of this, Notice of Motion does not survive and is disposed of as infructuous.

¶27

9. Refund of court fee, if any, in accordance with the Rules.

¶28

10. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶29

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶30

Page 3 of 3
24th October 2016

M/S. Blossum Estates v. Deven Ramjibhai Raghani and 19 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Blossum Estates v. Deven Ramjibhai Raghani and 19 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

Meena Sivakumar Vs Valliammal Veluswami Mudaliar (Deceased)

Zenith Metaplast (P) Ltd. Vs -

Zigma Laxinates and Systems (P) Ltd. Vs -

Manjula Ramakant Buch Vs Divyanshu Ramakant Buch (Deceased)

Premila Gautam Rajput Vs Gautam B Rajput (Deceased)

Wahida Manjothi Vs Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd. (Respondents)