Partly allowed

Clement Soares. v. 1. Mrs. Juliana Farias, 2. Fr.Leopold Soares (Through his C.A. Mrs. Juliana Farias.)

Bombay HC24 Nov 2016TS/12/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Coram G.S. Patel, J., the High Court corrected clerical errors in a previous order dated 23.11.2016 regarding a testamentary suit and petitioner's advocates. The court modified the timeline for the issuance of probate to allow the respondent time to file a first appeal.

What did the court decide?

Error in the prior order was corrected; issuance of probate was deferred until after 10.02.2017 to allow the defendant to file a first appeal.

Clement Soares. Vs 1. Mrs. Juliana Farias, 2. Fr.Leopold Soares (Through his C.A. Mrs. Juliana Farias.) — Bombay HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

905-TS12-06.DOC

¶2

SHEPHALI

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO. 12 OF 2006

¶4

IN

¶5

TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 623 of 2005

¶6

WITH

¶7

TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO. 19 OF 2008

¶8

IN

¶9

TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 217 OF 2007

¶10

Clement Soares…Plaintiff
Versus
Juliani Farias & Another…Defendants

¶11

Ms. Rashmi Patil, i/b M/s. S.K. Srivastav & Co., for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Raphael D’Souza, for the Defendants.

¶12

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 15th December 2016

¶13

PC:-

¶14

1.The application is for speaking to the minutes. There are
errors in the order dated 23rd November 2016 which are to be
corrected as follows:

¶15

(a)The appearance for the Plaintiff shall be corrected to
read “Mr. Shailesh Shah, Senior Advocate, with Mr.

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

15th December 2016

¶18

905-TS12-06.DOC

¶19

Abhinav Chandrachud, Ms. Simeen Shaikh, Ms. Rashmi
Patil & Ms. Priyanka Gharge, i/b S.K. Srivastav & Co.,
for the Plaintiff”;

¶20

(b) The reference to “ Eliza ” in the bottom seventh line of paragraph 10 on page 8 shall be corrected to read as “ Juliana ”;

¶21

(c) The sentence “some consequences because in her Evidence Affidavit Juliana later says that Leopold told her this fresh Will was given not to Clement but to Eliza herself” in the bottom fourth line of paragraph 10 on page 8 shall be corrected to read “some consequences because in Leopold's Affidavit of Evidence he says that this fresh Will was given not to Clement but to Eliza herself.”;

¶22

(d) The word “ partly ” appearing in the first line of paragraph 18 on page 13 shall be deleted;

¶23

(e) The word “ PW2 ” appearing in the second and third line of paragraph 23 on page 18 shall be corrected to read “ DW2 ”;

¶24

(f) The reference to “ Juliana ” in the fourth line of paragraph 37 on page 25 shall be corrected to read as “ Eliza ”;

¶25

Page 2 of 3
15th December 2016

¶26

905-TS12-06.DOC

¶27

(g) The reference to the document at “ Exhibit “D1” ” in the second line of paragraph 41 on page 29 shall be corrected to read “ Exhibit “P9” ”

¶28

2. The order dated 23rd November 2016 be read accordingly.

¶29

3.Mr. D’Souza now seeks stay of the operation of that order.
He candidly admits that he did not seek a stay of the order when it
was pronounced. The application is very strongly opposed by the
Plaintiffs. Given the fact that this is an order finally disposing of the
Suit, I think it is only reasonable that Mr. D’Souza be given some
time. After all he has a statutory right of a first appeal. That Appeal
will be rendered difficult and perhaps impossible if in the meantime
probate is issued.

¶30

4.I had directed the Registry to issue probate before 22nd
December 2016. Rather than formally grant a stay, I will alter that
direction. In modification of the 23rd November 2016 order, the
Registry will issue probate as expeditiously as possible at the earliest
possible date after 10th February 2017.

¶31

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶32

Page 3 of 3
15th December 2016

Clement Soares. v. 1. Mrs. Juliana Farias, 2. Fr.Leopold Soares (Through his C.A. Mrs. Juliana Farias.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Clement Soares. v. 1. Mrs. Juliana Farias, 2. Fr.Leopold Soares (Through his C.A. Mrs. Juliana Farias.)

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

Socomed Pharma Private Limited Vs Syncom Formulations (I) Ltd.

Rallis India Limited Vs Vimax Crop Science Limited and Another

Dudhnath Kallu Yadav Vs Ramashankar R.Yadav and Ors. and Motichand Jagannath Yadav (Applicant)

Clement Soares. Vs 1. Mrs. Juliana Farias - Herself and also C.A. of - 2. Fr.Leopold Soares.

Shivanand v Salgaocar and 7 Ors. Vs Dattaraj v Salgaocar and 30 Ors. and Vmsalgaocar Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and 14 Others

Sangita Sanjay Lohar Vs Sanjay Laxhman Lohar (Deceased)