Disposed

Smt. Madhavi Sridhar v. Smt. Shubha Satish Mhapsekar

Bombay HC7 Oct 2016MPT/32/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposal of Testamentary Suit No. 185 of 2013 and related miscellaneous petitions based on consent terms signed by all parties. The suit was decreed according to the settlement. One miscellaneous petition was withdrawn and dismissed; others were disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed in accordance with Consent Terms; Miscellaneous Petition No. 104 of 2014 dismissed as withdrawn; others disposed of accordingly.

Smt. Madhavi Sridhar Vs Smt. Shubha Satish Mhapsekar — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

907-TSL185-13+.DOC

¶2

ATUL

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO. 185 OF 2013

¶4

IN

¶5

TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 1463 OF 2012

¶6

Shubha Satish Mhapsekar …Plaintiff
Versus
Mrs. Madhavi Sridhan & Others…Defendants

¶7

WITH

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 31 OF 2014 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 1454 OF 2012 AND

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 104 OF 2014 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 42 OF 2012

¶10

AND

¶11

MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 32 OF 2014 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 1461 OF 2012

¶12

Mr. Prathamesh Kamat, with Sapana Rachure, i/b T.N. Tripathi &
Co., for the Plaintiff/Applicant in TS/185/2013, for the
Respondent in MPT/31/2014 & for the Respondent in
MPT/32/2014 & for the Petitioner in MPT/104/2014.
Mr. Vatsal Shah, with Ms. L. Munim & Ms. Arti Joglekar, i/b Rajesh
Kothari & Co., for Defendant No. 1 in TS/185/2013, for the
Petitioner in MPT/31/2014 & MPT/32/2014 & for the
Respondent in MPT/104/2014.

¶13

Page 1 of 3
7th October 2016

¶14

907-TSL185-13+.DOC

¶15

Mr. Varun Shah, for Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 in TS/183/2013.

¶16

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 7th October 2016

¶17

PC:-

¶18

1.Testamentary Suit No. 185 of 2013 is not on board.
Mentioned. By consent, taken on board.

¶19

2.Testamentary Suit No. 185 of 2013 as amended (in terms of
the amendment separately allowed today in Chamber Summons (L)
No. 151 of 2016) is disposed of in terms of the Consent Terms and
Minutes of Order, both dated 7th October 2016. The Consent
Terms are signed by the Defendants, their Advocates and by the
Plaintiff and her Advocate. So are the Minutes of Order. These are
confirmed by the parties present in Court. All parties/their
representatives are present in Court.

¶20

3.I have seen the Consent Terms. They appear to be in order.
They are not contrary to law and drawn by the parties of their own
volition in reflection of their true intention. The Consent Terms are
taken on record and marked “X” for identification. The
undertakings in the Consent Terms are accepted as undertakings to
the Court.

¶21

4.The Suit is decreed in accordance with the Consent Terms.
Drawn up decree dispensed with. However, if for the purpose of
implementation of these Consent Terms, and in particular in regard
to any immovable property transactions contemplated in the

¶22

Page 2 of 3
7th October 2016

¶23

907-TSL185-13+.DOC

¶24

Consent Terms, should the parties require a drawn up order or
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
order/decree is to be strictly in accordance with these Consent
Terms only.

¶25

5.In view of the Consent Terms, Miscellaneous Petition No. 31
of 2014 in Testamentary Petition No. 1454 of 2012, Miscellaneous
Petition No. 32 of 2014 in Testamentary Petition No. 1461 of 2012
also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶26

6.Mr. Kamat, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw
Miscellaneous Petition No. 104 of 2014 in Testamentary Petition
No. 42 of 2012. Leave granted. Miscellaneous Petition No. 104 of
2014 is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶27

7. All concerned to act on authenticated copy of this order.

¶28

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶29

Page 3 of 3
7th October 2016

Smt. Madhavi Sridhar v. Smt. Shubha Satish Mhapsekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Madhavi Sridhar v. Smt. Shubha Satish Mhapsekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Lassie Mendosia and 5 Ors. Vs Anthony Mathew Dlima and 12 Ors. and Babette Pereira (Applicant)

Black Ticket Films Vs Walter Philip and Anr.

Prspctvs Productions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and 51 Ors.

J.G.Hosiery Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sunil Khanna and Anr.

Smt. Madhavi Sridhar Vs Smt. Shubha Satish Mhapsekar

Sidharth Baori and 14 Ors. Vs Mantri Realty Limited Cin No. U45202MH2001PLC164434