Allowed

Prabhu Constructions, a Prop Firm, Rep. Thr. Its Prop. Venkatesh Narayan Prabhumoni and 2 Ors., v. Shahajanand Investment Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Director, Rasiklal Mohanlal Gangani.

Bombay HC23 Nov 2017CRA/27/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court on direct revision dismissed an execution application on merits but quashed the lower court order setting aside the quashing order for remand to decide on merits.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order of civil judge; remanded execution application to be decided on merits within six months. Contentions on merits kept open.

Prabhu Constructions, a Prop Firm, Rep. Thr. Its… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

Santosh 1 cra27-17dt.23-11-17

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 27 OF 2017

¶3

Prabhu Constructions. ..…. Applicant.
Versus
Shahajanand Investment Pvt. Ltd. ....... Respondent.

¶4

Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. M. Furtado, Advocate
for the Applicant.

¶5

Mr. E.O. Mendes, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶6

Coram : N.M. Jamdar, J.
 Date : 23 November 2017.

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

 Heard Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate for

¶9

the Applicant-Judgment Debtor and Mr. E. O. Mendes, learned
Advocate for the Respondent.

¶10

2.At the joint request, the Revision Application is taken up
for final disposal. The learned Counsel for the parties request that
the Revision Application may be disposed of by following order and
no reasons in support thereof be given as any observation on merits
by this Court might influence the merits of the rival contentions. It
is accordingly ordered :

¶11

Santosh

¶12

 2 cra27-17dt.23-11-17

¶13

(I)The order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr.
Division, at Mapusa in Special Execution Application
No.4 /2015/A is quashed and set aside.

¶14

(II)The Special Execution Application No.4 /2015/A
will be decided by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division
on its own merits and will not be rejected on the ground
that the contentions raised by the Applicant-Judgment
Debtor cannot be considered in the execution
proceedings.

¶15

(III)The question whether the Application to be
treated as one under Order 21, Rule 2 or under Section
47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, will be considered by
the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division as per law.

¶16

(IV)The learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division will make an
endeavour to dispose of the Special Execution
Application within a period of six months from today.

¶17

(V)All the contentions, on merits of the Application,
are kept open.

¶18

Santosh 3 cra27-17dt.23-11-17

¶19

3. The Civil Revision Application is disposed of in the above

¶20

terms.

¶21

 N.M. Jamdar, J.

Prabhu Constructions, a Prop Firm, Rep. Thr. Its Prop. Venkatesh Narayan Prabhumoni and 2 Ors., v. Shahajanand Investment Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Director, Rasiklal Mohanlal Gangani.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhu Constructions, a Prop Firm, Rep. Thr. Its Prop. Venkatesh Narayan Prabhumoni and 2 Ors., v. Shahajanand Investment Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Director, Rasiklal Mohanlal Gangani.

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

Archdiocese of Goa, Daman and Diu, Rep. Thr. Its Procurator., Vs Ravindra C.P. Navelkar.

Ferromar Shipping Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Duly Const. Poa, Chandrakumar R. Huilgol., Vs Prince Marine Transport Services Ltd.

Mr. Sergio Euclides D'Silva and Anr., Vs Mr. Atanasio Norberto Jose Joao Baptista Flavio Pinto E Silva (Dec) Thr. His Lrs and 2 Ors.

Laurenca Siqueira Pinto and Anr., Vs Milan Babani Naik Dessai and 10 Ors.

Filomena Fernandes and 15 Ors., Vs Rosa Quiteria Fernandes (Expired), Thr. Lrs. and 17 Ors.

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji., Vs Andrew Telecommunication Ltd.