Disposed

P.S.Kapadia v. R.S.Kapadia

Bombay HC24 Aug 2016TS/82/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court settled Testamentary Suit No. 82 of 1994. The Plaintiff and Defendant appeared personally and submitted consent terms. Justice Patel confirmed the terms were lawful and voluntary, recorded them, disposed of the suit accordingly, and provided for a drawn-up decree upon request.

What did the court decide?

Suit disposed of in accordance with consent terms; no drawn-up decree drawn at this time.

P.S.Kapadia Vs R.S.Kapadia — Bombay HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

903-TS82-94.DOC

¶2

SHEPHALI

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO. 82 OF 1994

¶4

IN

¶5

TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 230 OF 1994

¶6

Pankaj Sunderdas Kapadia…Plaintiff
Versus
Ranjit Sunderdas Kapadia…Defendant

¶7

Mr. S.R. Tejpal , with Mr. Ashok Varma, i/b Tejpal & Company, for the Plaintiff. Mr. M.G. Raut , for the Defendant.

¶8

CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:24th August 2016

¶9

PC:-

¶10

1.The Suit is settled. Consent Terms are tendered. These are
signed by the Plaintiff and Defendant, both of whom are personally
present in Court. The Consent Terms are also signed by the
Advocates for the parties.

¶11

2.I am satisfied that the Consent Terms are not contrary to law;
that they have been drawn by the parties of their own volition; and
that they reflect their true intentions. 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.

¶12

Page 1 of 2

¶13

24th August 2016

¶14

903-TS82-94.DOC

¶15

3.Exhibit “1” to these Consent Terms are a parallel set of
Consent Terms proposed to be filed in another Suit No. 1113 of 2015
between Shri Mahavir Estates, a partnership firm and, inter alia, the
present Plaintiff and the present Defendant as Defendants Nos. 2
and 1, respectively.

¶16

4.The present Testamentary Suit is disposed of in accordance
with the Consent Terms. Refund of court fee, if any, in accordance
with the Rules.

¶17

5.Drawn up decree or order dispensed with. Should either of
the the parties require a drawn up order and decree, they will each
be entitled, on production of an authenticated copy of this order, to
apply for such a drawn up order/decree, and will not be required to
make a fresh application for that purpose.

¶18

6. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶19

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶20

Page 2 of 2
24th August 2016

P.S.Kapadia v. R.S.Kapadia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.S.Kapadia v. R.S.Kapadia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rehab Pictures Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and 38 Ors.

Jharna Hitesh Shah Vs Rinky Bhajanlal Lulla

Jumpball Ventures LLP Vs Jay Robotix Pvt.Ltd and Anr.

Vatsalya Trust Vs Raghuram Thirunalairajan and Deepa Kadambi and Arya (Minor)

The Supreme Industries Limited Vs Vivek Polymers and Anr.

Vatsalya Trust Vs Yashodhara Patnaik Manduvakurti and Anr. (Pro. Adopters) and Riya @ Megha (Minor)