Disposed

City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (Cidco) through Their S.K.Karhad., v. Rashmi Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Their Director Shri N.P. Vasu Nair.

Bombay HC11 Jan 2017WP/354/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition by CIDCO challenging an order rejecting an application to summon a former director in an execution case. The court held the petition infructuous as the witness had expired, while directing the executing court to decide the subsequent application under Order 21 Rule 41 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as infructuous; Executing Court directed to decide pending summons application under Order 21 Rule 41 CPC.

City and Industrial Development Corporation of… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1 WP 354 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 354 OF 2013

¶4

City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (CIDCO), Through their Authorized Signatory, Shri Sanjay K. Karhad, major, having office at CIDCO Bhavan, 3^rd floor, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai 400 614. ….. Petitioners.

¶5

V e r s u s

¶6

Rashmi Constructions Pvt. Ltd., A Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having their Office at Niteen Chambers, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. Represented herein by their Director Shri N. P. Vasu Niar. …... Respondents

¶7

Shri A. Kantak, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶8

CORAM: C. V. BHADNAG, J. DATE: 11TH JANUARY, 2017.

¶9

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶10

Heard Shri Kantak, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Diniz, the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶11

2 WP 354 2013

¶12

The petition challenges the order dated 16/2/2013 passed by the Executing Court by which the application Exhibit 55 filed by the petitioner/Decree Holders for summoning Ms. Manda Bhadekar, the former Director of the respondent/company for being examined in the Execution Case has been rejected. The application was purportedly filed under Order 21 Rule 41 of C.P.C. The trial Court has dismissed the application by the impugned order dated 16/2/2013 inter alia on the ground that the application was not filed by a person who was authorized to file the same and that Ms. Manda Bandekar was only a formal director.

¶13

It is undisputed that since after the filing of the petition Ms. M. Bandekar has expired on 13/1/2015. In such circumstances, the prayer for summoning of Ms. Manda Bandekar for being examined does not survive. It is further undisputed that the petitioner has now filed an application before the Executing Court seeking summons to Mr. Narayan Bandekar which is pending before the Executing Court. The Executing Court has kept that application in abeyance on

¶14

3 WP 354 2013

¶15

account of the pendency of the present petition. Be that as it may, the present petition has become infructuous and as such the same is disposed of, with no order as to costs. Needless to mention that the Executing Court shall decide the application dated 4/5/2013, in the context of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 41 of C.P.C and in accordance with law. It is made clear that the Executing Court shall not be influenced by the observations made in the impugned order dated 16/2/2013.

¶16

C. V. BHADANG, J.

¶17

Ap/-

City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (Cidco) through Their S.K.Karhad., v. Rashmi Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Their Director Shri N.P. Vasu Nair.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (Cidco) through Their S.K.Karhad., v. Rashmi Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Their Director Shri N.P. Vasu Nair.

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 Nitin Yeshwant Patekar. Vs Village Panchayat Dhargal, Thr. Its Sarpanch and 5 Ors.

Belarmin Fernandes and Anr., Vs Roque Philip Fernandes and 7 Ors.

Atul Ashok Bicholkar., Vs the State of Goa, Thr. Police Inspector, Vasco Police Station, Vasco.

Mr. Rajendra @ Raj Biliye., Vs Mr. Atish Lotlikar and Anr.

Shri Purushottam B. Gaude, Thr. Presently in Custody, Thr. His Next Friend Mr. Minu Gaude. Vs Vpk Urban Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd.,Rep. Herein by Its Rec. Officer,Mr. Babani Anant Gaude and Anr.

City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (Cidco), Thr. Aut. Pranik v. Mul., Vs Rashmi Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Their Director Shri N. P. Vasu Nair.