Dismissed

Jitendra Gopaldas S/O Gopaldas Bhatia and Anr. v. Shiv Kumar Jatia S/O Subh Karan Jatia and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC16 Jul 2018RP/11/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge dismissed a review petition filed against an order of March 1, 2018, which had rejected a belated chamber summons seeking execution of a decree. The Judge held the petition was misconceived and sought to virtually rewrite a prior 2009 order by a learned Judge.

What did the court decide?

No costs awarded. Review petition dismissed as misconceived and with no scope.

Jitendra Gopaldas S/O Gopaldas Bhatia and Anr. Vs… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

25-RPL8-18.DOC

¶2

Arun

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 8 OF 2018

¶4

IN

¶5

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1051 OF 2009 IN

¶6

EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 198 OF 2009

¶7

Jitendra Gopaldas Bhatia & Anr…Petitioners
In the matter between
Jitendra Gopaldas Bhatia & Anr…Claimants
Versus
Shiv Kumar Jatia & Ors…Respondents

¶8

Mr Mayur Khandeparkar, with Mr Umesh Tiwari, Mr M
Mandhane & Ms Hetal V, i/b S Ashwinikumar & Company, for
the Petitioner.
Mr Vishal Kanade, i/b Amarchand & Mangaldas & Company, for the
Respondent.

¶9

CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:16th July 2018

¶10

PC:-

¶11

1.Heard. The Petition is misconceived. After I passed an order
of 1st March 2018 on a Chamber Summons filed by the present
Review Petitioner, comes this Review Petition seeking, for all intents

¶12

Page 1 of 3
16th July 2018

¶13

25-RPL8-18.DOC

¶14

and purposes, a second bite at the same, by now thoroughly
masticated, cherry.

¶15

2.What the Review Petitioners sought then, and which they
seek again now, is that I should virtually rewrite an order of 18th
September 2009 of Dr DY Chandrachud J (as he then was) in
Chamber Summons No. 1051 of 2009. I dismissed that Chamber
Summons on 1st March 2018. Now comes this Review Petition
seeking a review of that very order of 18th September 2009, saying
that the learned Judge made an error, the consequence of which is
that the Review Petitioner’s decree remains unsatisfied to the extent
of Rs.50 lakhs. That furnishes no ground. Many decree remains
unsatisfied, and there is no law that says that every decree must be
satisfied no matter what. The law, indeed, requires the decree
holder to be vigilant and timely in execution of the decree (hence,
Order XXI Rule 22).

¶16

3.In my order of 1st March 2018, I said that the Chamber
Summons I was then considering was a bit of latter-day cleverness,
one that came up only eight years after the event. That is true too of
this Review Petition.

¶17

4.In addition it must be noted that Dr Chandrachud J’s order
was carried in Appeal No. 149 of 2010. On 2nd April 2012, the
present Review Petitioners withdrew the Appeal unconditionally.
That order is reproduced below:

¶18

1. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants states that the Appellants would like to withdraw this appeal by

¶19

Page 2 of 3
16th July 2018

¶20

25-RPL8-18.DOC

¶21

accepting the judgment of the learned Single Judge with a
liberty to take appropriate remedy with the Income Tax
Department as permissible in law.

¶22

2.The appeal is disposed of as withdrawn. It is
clarified that we are not expressing any opinion on the
merits of the appeal, except allowing the Appellants to
withdraw the appeal unconditionally.

¶23

5.In this view of the matter, there is absolutely no scope
whatsoever for a review as sought. There is no error on the face of
the record.

¶24

6. The Review Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶25

(G. S. PATEL, J)

¶26

Page 3 of 3
16th July 2018

Jitendra Gopaldas S/O Gopaldas Bhatia and Anr. v. Shiv Kumar Jatia S/O Subh Karan Jatia and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Gopaldas S/O Gopaldas Bhatia and Anr. v. Shiv Kumar Jatia S/O Subh Karan Jatia and 2 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

Hdb Finance Services Limited Vs Shri. Jetendra Vishanji Chheda and Anr.

Kirtikumar Nivratti Misal Vs Nivrutti Jaiwant Misal (Deceased)

Sanah Roshan Mansukhani Vs Purnima Ramchandra Puranik

Y.T Entertainment Ltd. Vs One More Thought Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. and 2 ORSand Swati Vinayaka Real Estate Dev. Pvt. Ltd. andANR(

Sanjay Khadiwala Vs Shrimant Randhirsinh

Sharad Harish Goswami @ 108 Goswami Sharad Kumarji Vs Goswami Villabhlal Dwarkeshlalji Maharaj HUF (Vdg Huf) and 8 Ors.