Dismissed

Mansingh S/O. Mahavir Nayak v. Sai Siddhant Developers

Bombay HC5 Dec 2016AO/255/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the appeal and civil application arising from an order refusing ad-interim mandatory injunction. It directed the Respondent to file a Reply to the pending Notice of Motion within four weeks and remitted the matter to the Trial Judge for early hearing.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Civil Application dismissed; Respondent directed to file Reply within four weeks; Notice of Motion to be heard before 30th May 2017.

Mansingh S/O. Mahavir Nayak Vs Sai Siddhant… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

P4-AO-255-16+.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 255 OF 2016 ALONG WITH

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 331 OF 2016 IN

¶5

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 255 OF 2016

¶6

Mansingh S/o. Mahavir Nayak Versus

¶7

…Appellant

¶8

Sai Siddhant Developers …Respondent

¶9

Mr. A.M. Saraogi, for the Appellant.

¶10

None for the Respondent.

¶11

CORAM : G.S. KULKARNI, J. DATE : 5th December 2016

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

Not on board. Taken on board on a praecipe as moved on behalf of the Appellant.

¶14

Heard Mr. Saraogi, the learned Counsel for the Appellant. Admittedly, the impugned order dated 30th September 2015 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court at Mumbai

¶15

Sharayu . 1 / 2

¶16

P4-AO-255-16+.doc

¶17

(Borivali Division) is on a draft Notice of Motion in Suit No. 2627 of 2015. By the impugned order, ad-interim relief has been refused. Mr. Saraogi fairly submits that the Notice of Motion is still pending. Considering the prayers as made in the Notice of Motion, the reliefs are in the nature of mandatory inunction. Rightly the reliefs could not be granted at the ad-interim stage. The Notice of Motion itself is required to be heard and decided.

¶18

Mr. Saraogi, informs that the Respondent has so far not filed Reply to the Notice of Motion. The Respondent/Defendant is directed to file Reply within a period of four weeks from today. After Reply is filed, the Appellant is at liberty to make a request to the learned Trial Judge to take up hearing of the Notice of Motion. The learned Trial Judge shall endevour to dispose of the Notice of Motion as early as possible and in any case, before 30th May 2017.

¶19

The Appeal from Order in the above circumstances, would not require any further adjudication and is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶20

The Civil Application would also not survive and is accordingly disposed of.

¶21

Sharayu .

¶22

2 / 2

Mansingh S/O. Mahavir Nayak v. Sai Siddhant Developers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mansingh S/O. Mahavir Nayak v. Sai Siddhant Developers

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

Meena Uddhav Bhosale and Ors. Vs the District Social Welfare Officer, Solapur and Ors.

Meena Uddhav Bhosale and Ors. Vs the District Social Welfare Officer, Solapur and Ors.

Mrs Kausarbanoo D/O Mohd. Abdul Sattar Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Mrs. Mohini Vijay Kalantri Thr.Poa-Mahendra L.Kalantri Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Thr.Its 'H' West Wardand Anr.

Mrs. Mohini Vijay Kalantri Thr.Poa-Mahendra L.Kalantri Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Thr.Its 'H' West Wardand Anr.

Mansingh S/O. Mahavir Nayak Vs Sai Siddhant Developers