Dismissed

Saurabh Subhash Pawse v. Nikhil Subhash Pawse and Pratima Nikhil Pawse

Bombay HC25 Oct 2016NMS/2572/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a notice of motion regarding a partition suit, the single judge declined to award additional license fees or interest due to the defendants' timely possession delivery. The judge directed the sale of a remaining row house by the Court Receiver.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the prayer for additional costs and interest; directed Court Receiver to sell the subject row house.

Saurabh Subhash Pawse Vs Nikhil Subhash Pawse and Pratima Nikhil… — Partition | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

959-NMSL2576-16.DOC

¶2

SHEPHALI

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 2576 OF 2016

¶4

IN

¶5

SUIT NO. 894 OF 2015

¶6

Saurabh Subhash Pawse…Plaintiff
Versus

¶7

Nikhil Subhash Pawse & Pratima Nikhil Pawse…Defendants

¶8

Mr. Pradeep J. Thorat, for the Plaintiff/Applicant.
Mr. Nikhil S. Pawse, Defendant No. 1 in person, present.

¶9

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 25th October 2016

¶10

PC:-

¶11

1.There has been a long standing dispute between the two
brothers over a property in this partition Suit. Ultimately, the
dispute in respect of one of the properties, Flat No. 21, Bhavya
Heights, Vakola, Santacruz (East), Mumbai 400 055 was resolved by
two orders dated 2nd September 2016 and 14th September 2016.
The Plaintiff was put in possession. The Defendant No. 1 and his
wife, Defendant No. 2, delivered possession. This was required to
be done in the presence of the Court Receiver. Having regard to the
circumstances of the case, Defendants will pay to the Court
Receiver costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/-. These expenses are to be

¶12

Page 1 of 3
25th October 2016

¶13

959-NMSL2576-16.DOC

¶14

paid by 18th November 2016 by an instrument drawn in favour of
the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay.

¶15

2.As regards prayer clause (d), Mr. Thorat for the Plaintiff is
correct in saying that his client has had incurred an additional one
month’s license fees of Rs.30,000/- and this only on account of
refusal of Defendants to adhere to and abide by their agreement and
orders of the Court.

¶16

3.However, having regard to the fact that this is a dispute
between brothers; and since the Defendants agreed to hand over
possession by 13th November 2016; and did so ahead of time on that
day, I will not grant Mr. Thorat the relief that he seeks and request
instead that both parties bear their own costs as they now stand and
move on.

¶17

4.For these reasons also, I will not make an order in terms of
prayer clause (e), which is for interest at the rate of 9% on an amount
paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendants.

¶18

5.There remains the question of what is to be done in respect of
other property, a Row House No. 75, Lotus, Florista Valley, Village
Kunenama, Taluka Maval, District Pune. This has two bedrooms, a
hall and a kitchen. Both sides have agreed that the Row House will
be sold by the Court Receiver. The Title Deeds to this Row House
were deposited with the Court Receiver. The Court Receiver will
immediately make a report and place it on reopening on the basis of
valuation already done and suggest the terms and conditions of the

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

25th October 2016

¶21

959-NMSL2576-16.DOC

¶22

sale and the reserved or offset price to be fixed by the sale of public
auction.

¶23

6.The Notice of Motion itself is disposed of in these terms.
There will be no order as to costs.

¶24

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶25

Page 3 of 3
25th October 2016

Saurabh Subhash Pawse v. Nikhil Subhash Pawse and Pratima Nikhil Pawse

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh Subhash Pawse v. Nikhil Subhash Pawse and Pratima Nikhil Pawse

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

Kamleshkumari Ramprakash Bindra and 4 Ors. Vs Ramprakash Laxmandas Bindra (Deceased)

Vasanti C. Dadhich and Anr. Vs Bhagvatidevi K. Dadhich and 3 Ors.

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

Veena Vijaykumar Oza Vs M/S.Sharan Shelters Pvt.Ltd and 11 Ors..

Anis Abbas Rokadia and 2 Ors. Vs Shabana Wd/O. Aziz Rokadia and 3 Ors.

Geeta Mohan Narayan Vs Uma Narayan and State of Maharashtra (Applicant)