Disposed

Shri. Mahipati Dhondi Gaikwad and Anr. v. Bhagwan Ganpati Gaikwad

Bombay HC10 Apr 2017RPS/2/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review petition, the Bombay High Court recalled an order concerning the effect of the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidations of Holdings Act while concluding other previously decided issues. The second appeal was restored to the regular court.

What did the court decide?

Review petition disposed; prior order recalled on 1947 Act issues; other pending issues concluded; second appeal restored to file.

Shri. Mahipati Dhondi Gaikwad and Anr. Vs Bhagwan Ganpati… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

20-rps2-17

¶2

vai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

REVIEW PETITION NO.2 OF 2017 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.475 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1009 OF 2015

¶5

Mahipati D. Gaikwad & Anr. ...Petitioners V/s. Bhagwan G. Gaikwad ...Respondent

¶6

Mr.Rahul S. Kadam for the Petitioners. Mr.S.R. Gunbavale for the Respondent.

¶7

CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. DATE : 10TH APRIL, 2017.

¶8

P.C. :-

¶9

Mr.Kadam, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner invited my attention to the written statement filed by his client before the learned trial Judge and also various paragraphs of the order passed by the learned trial Judge as well as the first appellate Court and would submit that though the review petitioner had raised the plea relying upon the provisions of the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidations of Holdings Act, 1947 before the learned trial Judge and also before the lower appellate Court, the learned counsel for the review petitioner could not point out before this Court the plea raised by his client in the written statement or

¶10

1/3

¶11

20-rps2-17

¶12

before the lower appellate Court.

¶13

My attention is invited to the order dated 31^st January, 2017 passed by the Supreme Court granting liberty to the review petitioner to withdraw the said Special Leave petition and to file the review in regard to the plea under the provisions of the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidations of Holdings Act, 1947. Learned counsel fairly states that in view of the limited liberty granted by the Supreme Court and in view of the order passed by this Court on 13^th October, 2016 in respect of the other issues decided by this Court earlier paragraph of the said order has attained finality. This Court be pleased to review the said order in respect of the issue about the effect of the provisions of the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidations of Holdings Act, 1947 on the transaction in question.

¶14

Mr.Gunbavale, learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that there would be no effect of the said provisions on the issue in question and thus order passed by this Court shall not be recalled.

¶15

4. I therefore, pass the following order :-

¶16

a). The order dated 13^th October, 2016 is recalled insofar as the effect of the provisions of the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidations of Holdings Act, 1947, if any, on the subject matter of the dispute between the parties is concerned. It is made clear that all

¶17

2/3

¶18

20-rps2-17

¶19

other issues which were raised by the review petitioner in the second appeal before this Court and which are already decided in paragraphs 1 to 8 of the order dated 13^th October, 2016 are concluded and cannot be reopened.

¶20

b). It is made clear that the review petitioner is not permitted to agitate any other issue except to the extent of effect of the provisions of the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidations of Holdings Act, 1947 on the subject matter of this dispute, if any, as mentioned in paragraph 9.

¶21

c). It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed any views as to whether there would be any effect of the provisions of the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidations of Holdings Act, 1947 on the subject matter of the dispute.

¶22

d). The review petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.

¶23

e). The Second Appeal No.475 of 2015 is restored to file along with Civil Application No.1009 of 2015 for the limited purpose as directed aforesaid.

¶24

f). Place the second appeal before the regular Court on 24^th April, 2017 for admission.

¶25

(R.D. DHANUKA, J.)

¶26

3/3

Shri. Mahipati Dhondi Gaikwad and Anr. v. Bhagwan Ganpati Gaikwad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Mahipati Dhondi Gaikwad and Anr. v. Bhagwan Ganpati Gaikwad

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

SBI Cards and Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Hemant J Vora

SBI Cards and Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Shah Jayendra M Sudarshan

SBI Cards and Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Shah Jayendra M Sudarshan

Shri. Mahipati Dhondi Gaikwad and Anr. Vs Bhagwan Ganpati Gaikwad

Qube Cinema Technologies Private Limited Vs Digital Cinema and Technology (I) Pvt. Ltd. Cin No. U72900MH2010PTC209036

Hirachand P Gulecha HUF Sole Prop. of M/S Hira Traders Vs Fine Diamond Limited Cin U36912MH1998PLC115838