Partly allowed

State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Amresh J. Divecha and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC3 Jul 2018APP/218/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court bench allowed the appeal partly, setting aside observations on transfer charges from the impugned order and directed parties to appear before the Collector for document registration within specified timelines.

What did the court decide?

Observations on transfer charges set aside; parties directed to appear before Collector and deposit charges by July 12, 2018 for registration; Notice of Motion disposed off.

State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs Amresh J. Divecha and 4 Ors. — Bombay HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Ladda

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

APPEAL No. 218 of 2018

¶4

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION (Lodging) No. 32 of 2018 IN

¶6

TESTAMENTARY SUIT No. 166 of 2013 IN

¶7

TESTAMENTARY PETITION No. 89 of 2013 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION No. 453 of 2018 IN

¶8

APPEAL No. 218 of 2018

¶9

State of Maharashtra and Anr

¶10

..Appellants.

¶11

Vs Amresh J. Divecha and 4 Ors ..Respondents.

¶12

Ms. Geeta Shastri, Addl.G.P. for the appellants.

¶13

Mr. F. Dubash i/by Vigil Juris for Respondent No.1.

¶14

Mr. Sridhar Chari a/with Mr. Preet Chheda i/by DSK Legal for Respondent No.2.

¶15

Dr. Birendra Saraf a/with Mr. Murtuza Federal, Mr. Mubashir Sayed, Ms. Spenta Havewala I/by M/s Federal Rashmikant for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

¶16

Mr. D. K. Patil, S.O. Court Receiver present.

¶17

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL &

¶18

G.S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATED : 3^rd July, 2018.

¶19

P.C. :

¶20

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

¶21

The learned Counsel appearing for the Court Receiver submits

¶22

that within a week's time appropriate application will be moved before the

¶23

16-app-218-18.doc

¶24

Collector, Mumbai City along with proper documents. On receipt of such an application from the Court Receiver, the parties shall appear before the Collectorate/Designated Officer and submit the required information. If required, the Collector may hear the parties orally so as to assess and appreciate the matter. Thereafter, the Collector shall determine the transfer charges within a week's time.

¶25

The learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submits that no sooner transfer charges are communicated, same will be paid according to the agreement. This exercise shall be completed by the Court Receiver and the Collector within 15 days from today. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants prayed that in the facts of the case, observations made by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 7 and 8 be set aside.

¶26

1. In view of the facts of the case and the statements recorded by

¶27

the contesting parties as above, the request made by the learned AGP deserves consideration. Thus, the observations in the directions issued in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the impugned order are set aside.

¶28

1. The appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶29

1. Initially, the parties to appear before the Collector on 12^th July,

¶30

2018 at 11:00 a.m. After compliance of all the formalities and deposit of

¶31

16-app-218-18.doc

¶32

transfer charges, the document be taken up for registration in accordance with law.

¶33

Learned AGP to communicate the order to the Collector and

¶34

brief the Collector accordingly.

¶35

In view of disposal of the appeal, nothing survives for consideration in the Notice of Motion. Notice of Motion No. 453 of 2018 is disposed off accordingly.

¶36

1. The parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶37

(G.S. KULKARNI,J)

¶38

(NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶39

16-app-218-18.doc

State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Amresh J. Divecha and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Amresh J. Divecha and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Electronfab Engineering Pvt.Ltd. Vs Runwal Constructions and Sandeep Runwal, Partern of Runwal Constructions

Sanjay Narang and Anr. Vs the Central Cottage Industries Corpn.of India Ltd.

Mukund Raghunath Farle and 4 Ors. Vs Atul Projects India Limited and 23 Ors.

Mr. Manoj Ramdas Mandlik S/O Ramdas Yashwant Mandlik and Anr. Vs Shri B. Y. Pagare and Ors.

The Advertising Standards Council of India Vs Puro Wellness Pvt. Ltd.

Dazzler Confectionary Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mohit Khabar Khabar