Dismissed

Paresh Damodardas Mahant v. Arun Damodardas Mahant(Since Deseased)and 6 Ors.

Bombay HC21 Apr 2016NMA/699/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Notice of Motion regarding a breach of interim order, the Court held that no drastic order appointing a Receiver was justified as no breach was established and granting the prayer would contradict the interim order.

What did the court decide?

Application to appoint a Court Receiver dismissed; liberty granted to file appropriate proceedings for alleged breach.

Paresh Damodardas Mahant Vs Arun Damodardas… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

nma-699.16

¶3

ash

¶4

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.699 OF 2016 IN APPEAL NO. 662 OF 2014 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.738 OF 2014 IN SUIT NO.454 OF 2010

¶6

Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions & Registrar’s orders.

¶7

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶8

Shri Vineet Naik, Senior Counsel along with Shri Vishal Kanade and Ms. Anooja Menon i/b Keystone Partners for the Applicant. Shri Karan Bhosale i/b India Law Alliance for the Respondent No.1(A).

¶9

Shri Sujay Kantawalla along with Shri Amit Karkhanis i/b Kay Legal & Associates for the Respondent No.2.

¶10

CORAM : A.S. OKA & P.D. NAIK, JJ DATED : 21ST APRIL 2016

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

. It is not in dispute between the parties that the order of the learned Single Judge dated 8^th May 2014 is operating as the interim order pending Appeal. In terms of the order dated 6^th April 2016, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Applicant tenders a Demand Draft in the sum of Rs.8,15,600/- drawn on Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court. The said Demand Draft is taken on record. The Associate of this Court shall

¶13

 2nma-699.16

¶14

ash

¶15

hand over the said Demand Draft to the Prothonotary and Senior Master.

¶16

There is no prayer made in the Notice of Motion for modification of the interim order which is operative till today. If according to the Applicant, there is a breach committed of the interim order which is operating in the Appeal, remedy of the Applicant is open. No case is made out as of today for passing a drastic order of appointment of a Court Receiver in terms of prayer Clause (a). As far as the prayer Clause (b) is concerned, if the same is granted, it will be contrary to the interim order passed in the Appeal. Hence, we decline to grant any relief in the present Notice of Motion. However, we grant liberty to the Applicant to file appropriate proceedings on the basis of the alleged breach committed by the Respondent. The Notice of Motion is disposed of.

Paresh Damodardas Mahant v. Arun Damodardas Mahant(Since Deseased)and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paresh Damodardas Mahant v. Arun Damodardas Mahant(Since Deseased)and 6 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

Swarup Suresh Khedekar Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Others

Kashinath Lalta Tiwari, Dilip Lalta Tiwari and Bipin Kashinath Tiwari. Vs Subhash Jarda Tiwari and 3 Ors.

M/S. Lanco Infratech Limited Vs M/S. Polycab Wires Pvt. Ltd.

Ariisto Hselters Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited Vs Official Liquidator of Uniworth Apperels Ltd. and Anr.

Sau. Varsha Suresh Patil Vs Shree Suresh Bhaskar Patil