Partly allowed

Atika Ahmed Antuley v. Shehab Bohra and Ors.

Bombay HC4 May 2016APP/44/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, partly allowed the appeal. The court quashed and set aside an impugned order, restored specific court documents to the file of the learned Single Judge, and disposed of all pending Notices of Motion. No order was made as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed and set aside; Court Receiver's Report, Chamber Summons, and Contempt Petition restored to Single Judge's file; all pending Notices of Motion disposed of.

Atika Ahmed Antuley Vs Shehab Bohra and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 of 3 NMA.836.2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

APPEAL NO.44 OF 2013 IN

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.836 OF 2016

¶5

Atika ahmed Antuley Appellant versus Shehab Bohra and others Respondents

¶6

Mr.Asif I. Patel for Appellant.

¶7

Mr.Pradeep Havnur with Ms.Radhika Sampat for Respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶8

Mr.R.V.Govilkar for Respondent no.8.

¶9

Mr.Naresh Ratnani i/by Ashwin Ankhad & Associates for Respondent no.11. Mr.S.S.Deshpande, Court Receiver, is present.

¶10

CORAM : A.S.OKA AND P.D.NAIK, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 4th May 2016

¶12

PC :

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned counsel for first and second Respondents (original Plaintiffs) who are the only contesting parties. Learned counsel for the first and second Respondents states that by setting aside the order dated 4 December 2012 in Chamber Summons No.1243 of 2012, Court Receiver's Report No.599 of 2012 and Contempt Petition No.72 of 2008 in Suit No.2675 of 2006 be restored to the file of learned Single Judge and a direction be issued to hear the said matters afresh.

¶14

2 of 3 NMA.836.2016

¶15

The Appellant cannot have any objection to this suggestion. After having perused the impugned order, we are satisfied that the suggestion made by learned counsel for first and second Respondents is reasonable and deserves to be accepted.

¶16

Hence, we pass following order :

¶17

(a) The impugned order dated 4 December 2012 is hereby quashed and set aside;

¶18

(b) Court Receiver's Report No.599 of 2012, Chamber Summons No.1243 of 2012 and Contempt Petition No.72 of 2008 in Suit No.2675 of 2006 are restored to the file of learned Single Judge;

¶19

(c) It will be open for the first and second Respondents to apply to the learned Single Judge for giving necessary priority to the hearing of the matters considering the fact that the contempt petition is of the year 2008;

¶20

(d) We are sure that if a case for giving priority is made out, the learned Single Judge will give necessary priority to the hearing of the matters;

¶21

3 of 3 NMA.836.2016

¶22

(e) The appeal is partly allowed in above terms. There will be no order as to costs;

¶23

(f) All contentions of the parties are kept open. All pending Notices of Motion do not survive and stand disposed of accordingly.

¶24

(P.D.NAIK, J.) (A.S.OKA, J.)

¶25

MST

Atika Ahmed Antuley v. Shehab Bohra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atika Ahmed Antuley v. Shehab Bohra and Ors.

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

Vilas Hanumantrao Madigeri Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr. Yeshwant Trimbak Oke and Ors. Vs Union of India and Somaiya Vidyavihar and Dy. Commissioner of Polic

Vinay Alias Victor Ram Mahadik Vs Smt. Sarojini Subhash Dalvi and 2 Ors.

Ishwar Prasad G. Khandelwal and the Applicant Vs the Registrar and Anr.

Mr. Ashok Keshav Patil Vs Mrs. Aparna Ashok Patil

Nitin Shankar Deshpande Vs the Registrar General and Anr.