Dismissed

Abdul Sattar Abdul Bulaqui Farooqui v. A.H. Wadia Charitable Trust and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Mar 2016WP/1420/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging an order rejecting a Chamber Summons. After hearing counsel, the court noted that the petitioner did not press the petition because a later order allowed the amendment of the summons. The court disposed of the writ as not pressed.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as not pressed; liberty reserved to apply for expeditious disposal of the suit.

Abdul Sattar Abdul Bulaqui Farooqui Vs A.H… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 / 2 WP/1420/2016

¶2

Tapadia RR/B.22

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1420 OF 2016

¶4

Abdul Sattar s/o Abdul Bulaque Farooqui

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

¶7

A.H.Wadia Charitable Trust, and Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr.R.V.Govilkar i/b Nadir B. Khan, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.Yahya Goghairi a/w Mr. Pratik V. Shah i/b VIGIL JURIS, Advocates for Respondents No. 1 to 5.

¶9

CORAM : R.G.KETKAR,J. DATE : 28/03/2016

¶10

PC :

¶11

Heard Mr.R.V.Govilkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Yahya Goghari, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 5 at length.

¶12

By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Judgment and order dated 27.10.2015 passed by the learned Judge, presiding over court no.2 of City Civil Court at Mumbai, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Goregaon, Mumbai, in Chamber Summons No. 836 of 2015 in S.C. Suit No.299 of 2005. By that order, the learned trial Judge rejected the Chamber Summons taken out by the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Govilkar has tendered photocopy of the order dated 18.3.2016 passed by the learned trial Judge in Chamber Summons No.187 of 2016. The learned trial Judge partly allowed the Chamber Summons and permitted the petitioner/plaintiff to

¶14

2 / 2 WP/1420/2016

¶15

carry out the amendment to the extent of paragraph 42-A within seven days by depositing costs of Rs.20,000/-. The same is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification.

¶16

Mr. Govilkar has also tendered paragraph42-A of Schedule of Amendment to the said Chamber Summons. That is also taken on record and marked “Y” for identification. Perusal of paragraph 42-A in Schedule at 'Y' shows that the petitioner has referred to Application No. 8 of 1998 made by him to the Charity Commissioner seeking permission to sue the defendant-trust By order dated 22.10.1999, the Charity Commissioner gave permission to sue the defendant. He has also tendered photocopy of proceedings before the Charity Commissioner which is taken on record and marked 'Z' for identification.

¶17

Mr. Govilkar states that the petitioner is present in the Court. Upon taking instructions from him, Mr. Govilkar does not press this petition on the ground that purpose of filing the Chamber Summons in the present case is served in view of the order dated 18.3.2016. 6. In view thereof, Petition is disposed of as not pressed. Liberty is reserved to the parties to apply for expeditious disposal of the suit. If such application is made, the learned trial Judge will pass appropriate order. Order accordingly.

¶18

(R.G.KETKAR, J.)

Abdul Sattar Abdul Bulaqui Farooqui v. A.H. Wadia Charitable Trust and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Sattar Abdul Bulaqui Farooqui v. A.H. Wadia Charitable Trust and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Sakharam Mhadu Chaugule and Anr. Vs Baban @ Laxman Bhau Yadav (Decd)

Jamil Ahmed Adhikari Vs East India Hotel Ltd. and Ors.

Shri. Sudesh Bharat Mayekar Vs Mrs. Jyoti Prakash Madye and Ors.

Manohar Laxman Sawant and Anr. Vs Bhanudas Vithoba Bhosale and Ors.

Rameshchandra Govind Gavankar Vs Deepak Nemchand Shah

Smt. Chhaya Hanmantrao Waghmode Vs the State of Maharashtra