Disposed

Bankeybihari Girirajprasad Agrawal v. Bharat Jadgishprasad Agrawal and 2 Others

Bombay HC6 Jul 2018GP/20/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Civil Judge issued interim directions in a partition suit, ordering the Plaintiffs to renumber their prayers for clarity and directing the Defendants to disclose particulars of leave and license agreements and maintain status quo regarding large properties.

What did the court decide?

Plaintiffs directed to renumber prayers; Defendants directed to disclose license agreements and maintain status quo on specific properties by 3rd August 2018.

Bankeybihari Girirajprasad Agrawal Vs Bharat… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

914-NMSL1562-18.DOC

¶2

Arun

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 1562 OF 2018

¶4

IN

¶5

SUIT (L) NO. 854 OF 2018

¶6

Bankeybihari G Agrawal …Applicant
In the matter between
Bankeybihari G Agrawal & Ors…Plaintiffs
Versus
Jagdishprasad G Agrawal & Ors…Defendants

¶7

WITH

¶8

GUARDIANSHIP PETITION (L) NO. 104 OF 2018

¶9

IN

¶10

SUIT (L) NO. 854 OF 2018

¶11

Mr Sanjay Jain, Mr Nishant Shashidaran, Mr Bhavin Gada & Ms
Payal K, i/b Harakhchand Company, for the Plaintiffs.
Mr Bhavik Manek, with Mr Ashok Paranjape, Ms U Deshmukh, Mr
Vishal Jathar, i/b MDP & Partner, for Defendants.
Mr Akshay Kandarkar, i/b Abhijeet Kandarkar, for Defendants Nos.
11 & 12.

¶12

Mr Sharan Jagtiani, with LC Thorat, for Defendant No.14.

¶13

CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:6th July 2018

¶14

PC:-

¶15

Page 1 of 4
6th July 2018

¶16

914-NMSL1562-18.DOC

¶17

1.The first order of business is to direct the Plaintiffs to
immediately renumber the quite extraordinary number of prayers
using numerals and not multiple alphabets. The last of these prayers
involves five instances of the letter q (qqqqq), straining the
boundaries of acceptable word processing, formatting and paragraph
numbering (and incredulity). It is impossible to accept or reject any
prayer in this suit without risking a serious typographical error. That
amendment is to be carried out forthwith in Court without need of
reverification.

¶18

2. Mr Jain for the Plaintiffs tenders two lists of properties. The first list, of seven properties, is taken on record and marked ‘L1’ for identification with today’s date. The second list has 11 properties, it is taken on record and marked ‘L2’ for identification with today’s date.

¶19

3. Items 1 and 2 of List ‘L1’ are admittedly in the possession of the Plaintiffs and no orders are required in that regard.

¶20

4.As regards Sr. Nos. 3 to 7 of List “L1”, according to the
Plaintiffs, Defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 7 have given these five premises
on leave and license to third parties. Defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 7 will,
by the next date (noted below) disclose on Affidavit complete
particulars of all Leave and License Agreements that they may have
entered into in respect of these five properties at Sr. Nos. 3 to 7 of
List ‘L1’. Copies of the Leave and License Agreements themselves
will be annexed. There will be a separate statement of all amounts
received (whether as a security deposit or monthly license fee or

¶21

Page 2 of 4
6th July 2018

¶22

914-NMSL1562-18.DOC

¶23

from any ancillary agreement for furniture and fixtures etc) in
respect of these five properties. Further, these Defendants will not,
without leave of the Court obtained after at least two weeks’ notice
to the Advocates for the Plaintiffs, terminate, renew, extend or enter
into any new Leave and License Agreements in respect of these five
properties until the next date.

¶24

5.Coming now to the list marked ‘L2’, according to Mr Jain the
properties listed at Sr. Nos. 6, 9 and 10 are extremely large
properties. Two of these, at Sr. Nos. 6 and 9, are in Mulund. The
third is in Shaniwar Peth, Karad. According to the Plaintiffs, there
are several structures on each of these properties and many of these
are in the hands of third parties, whether as tenants or otherwise.
Those particulars are not known to the Plaintiffs. Therefore the
application is that by the next date the contesting Defendants must
disclose complete particulars of these properties including full
particulars of who is in occupation of what portion of the properties
or the structures standing on them. It goes without saying that
between now and the next date the contesting Defendants are not to
accept any applications for surrender or transfer of tenancy, if any,
and will not alter the existing status quo. On behalf of Defendant
Nos. 1 to 10 a statement is made in this regard, which is accepted.

¶25

6. As regards Items 4, 5 and 8 of list ‘L2’, the same order that was made in respect of the Items 3 to 7 of list ‘L1’ will apply, i.e. that there will be a disclosure of the present status of Leave and License Agreements, if any, with complete particulars and that there will be no renewals, extensions or substitutions of these Leave and License Agreements until the next date.

¶26

Page 3 of 4
6th July 2018

¶27

914-NMSL1562-18.DOC

¶28

7. All Affidavits of Disclosure will be filed and served on or before 3rd August 2018.

¶29

8. List the matter forad-interim order on 6th August 2018.

¶30

GUARDIANSHIP PETITION (L) NO. 104 OF 2018

¶31

IN

¶32

SUIT (L) NO. 854 OF 2018

¶33

9. By consent, the 7th Defendant is appointed the guardian ad litem for Defendants Nos. 9 and 10, both minors.

¶34

10.The Guardianship Petition (L) No. 104 of 2018 is disposed of
in these terms with no order as to costs.

¶35

(G. S. PATEL, J)

¶36

Page 4 of 4
6th July 2018

Bankeybihari Girirajprasad Agrawal v. Bharat Jadgishprasad Agrawal and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bankeybihari Girirajprasad Agrawal v. Bharat Jadgishprasad Agrawal and 2 Others

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

Meenu Manu Thakur and Anr. Vs Rukmani Mohandas Jethwani @ Rukmani Mohandas Jethwani @ Rukmani M. Jethwani (Deceased)

Mswc, Asha Sadan Vs Juan Garcia Montes and Karishma Chugani Nankani

Joseph Augustine Mampilly Vs Olekengal Kunjuvareed Anthony Alias Olekengal K. Anthony Alias O. K. Anthony (Deceased)

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs M/S. Earnest and Co.

Sitadevi Gaurishankar Goenka Vs Gaurishankar Ganpatrai Goenka (Deceased)

Nadeem Majid Oomerbhoy Vs Rashid Sattar Oomerbhoy and 11 Ors. and Khatija A.S. Oomerbhoy and 2 Ors. (Respondent)