Dismissed

Suhas Balkrishna Samant v. Ganpat Sakharam Shete and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Jul 2018CAO/362/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a review petition and a civil application seeking extension of time to deposit Rs. 4 lakhs. The court held that previous indulgences shown to the applicant had been exhausted, citing that the applicant had failed to deposit the amount despite filing an undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Review Petition No. 1 of 2018 and Civil Application No. 362 of 2018 were dismissed.

Suhas Balkrishna Samant Vs Ganpat Sakharam Shete and… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

2-rpn-1-18-cao-362-18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

REVIEW PETITION NO. 1 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 362 OF 2018 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 376 OF 2017 IN

¶4

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 234 OF 2017

¶5

Suhas B. Samant Versus

¶6

Ganpat S. Shete and ors.

¶7

...Petitioner/Applicant

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Ms Pratima Saundalkar I/b Ms Rushita Jain for the Petitioner/Applicant.

¶10

Mr. Ajit Karwande for the Respondents.

¶11

CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J.

¶12

DATE : 23.07.2018.

¶13

P.C. (In Chamber)

¶14

1] Heard Ms Pratima Saundalkar, learned counsel for the

¶15

petitioner/applicant.

¶16

2] By Civil Application No. 362 of 2018, once again, extension of time is applied for. By order dated 16.4.2018, subject to the applicant/petitioner's filing an undertaking that he will deposit the amount of Rs.4 lakhs positively within three months, extension was granted. The undertaking was filed but no amount has been deposited.

¶17

D.S.Sherla page 1 of 3

¶18

2-rpn-1-18-cao-362-18

¶19

3] On the previous occasion also the reasons stated in the review petition were in the context of health of applicant's wife. In the order dated 16.4.2018, it was noted that even the reasons/grounds set out in the review petition were entirely misconceived and appeared to be nothing, but an attempt to take advantage of indulgence shown to the applicant/petitioner from time to time.

¶20

4] Even this time, learned counsel for the applicantpetitioner, made a plea that at least four weeks extension be granted. Since, indulgence has been shown on several occasions earlier, it is not possible to continue with the indulgence.

¶21

5] Learned counsel for the respondents points out that on 20.4.2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the special leave petition instituted by the applicant/petitioner has granted time to the applicant/petitioner to vacate the premises till 31.7.2018, subject to filing of usual undertaking with the Registry of the Hon'ble Supreme Court within one week.

¶22

This special leave petition as well as the pending applications have also been disposed of.

¶23

D.S.Sherla page 2 of 3

¶24

2-rpn-1-18-cao-362-18

¶25

6] Taking into consideration of the aforesaid

¶26

circumstances, it is not possible to show any further indulgence in this matter. Accordingly, Review Petition No. 1 of 2018 and Civil Application No. 362 of 2018 therein, are hereby dismissed.

¶27

7] Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, no order is made as to the costs.

¶28

(M.S. SONAK, J.)

¶29

Dinesh Sadanand Sherla

¶30

Digitally signed by Dinesh Sadanand Sherla Date: 2018.07.23 17:11:51 +0530

¶31

D.S.Sherla page 3 of 3

Suhas Balkrishna Samant v. Ganpat Sakharam Shete and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suhas Balkrishna Samant v. Ganpat Sakharam Shete and 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

Bai Mamubai Trust and Ors. Vs Suchitra W/O. of Sadhu Koraga Shetty

Giriraj Enterprises through Their Partner, Shri Ashish M. Malpani Vs Shri. Prataprao Atmaram Redkar and Ors.

Shri Kumar Balu Nikam Vs Shri Namdev Sadashiv Nikam

Suhas Balkrishna Samant Vs Ganpat Sakharam Shete and Ors.

Sou. Mangala Anandrao Chavan Vs Vishnupant Shamrao Modi

Godumal Narayandas Kishnani Vs Shri. Premchand @ Prem Tejumal Chichrya @ Gurdasani, and Ors.