Dismissed

Aviation Travels Private Limited v. Bhavesh Suresh Goradia and 23 Ors.

Bombay HC26 Oct 2018RPA/25/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a notice of motion seeking condonation of a 27-day delay in filing a review petition, rejecting the respondent's objection based on inconsistent affidavit statements. The court subsequently rejected the review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, finding no evident error in the impugned order, and dismissed a pending related notice of motion.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 27-day delay granted; Review Petition rejected; Pending Notice of Motion disposed of.

Aviation Travels Private Limited Vs Bhavesh… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

16NMA801-18-RPAL20-18

¶3

pvr

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

REVIEW PETITION (LODG) NO.20 OF 2018 in

¶7

APPEAL (L) NO.224 OF 2018

¶8

Aviation Travels Pvt.Ltd. ...Review Petitioner Versus 1.Bhavesha Suresh Goradia & Ors. ...Respondents

¶9

with NOTICE OF MOTION NO.801 OF 2018 (for Condonation of delay)

¶10

with Notice of Motion (ST)No.1020 OF 2018

¶11

Mr.Rameshwar Totala with Mr.Manoj Badgujar, for the Petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Piyush Raheja with Mr.Tejal Kurdukar with Mr.Dharmesh Pandya I/b. Ashwin Pandya & Associates, for Respondent no.1..

¶13

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, ACTING CJ. & G.S. KULKARNI, J. DATE : 26^h OCTOBER, 2018 ---

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

Notice of Motion no.801 of 2018.

¶16

This Notice of motion has been filed by the applicant (original appellant/Review Petitioner) seeking condonation of delay of 27 days in filing the above review petition.

¶17

Considering the short delay we would have straightway proceeded to allow this notice of motion, however, an objection is raised

¶18

¶19

16NMA801-18-RPAL20-18

¶20

pvr

¶21

on behalf of respondent no.1 in regard to the averments of the applicant in paragraph 5(ii) by which the applicant has explained the delay. This statement in the affidavit reads thus:-

¶22

The delay has been caused on account of the following reasons:

¶23

(i) … …. ...

¶24

(ii) I say that the petitioner came to know about the grounds on which review is sought only after taking the search of original file of the suit i.e. on 29.08.2018, it took a significant amount of time for the petitioner to decide whether or not to proceed with the present Review. Since the petitioner is a company and required to consider the implications of the order and generate a consensus on the way forwards after obtaining legal advice.”

¶25

The submission of the learned Counsel for respondent no.1 is that this is a false statement made on oath by the applicant and to support this we are shown paragraph 12 of the affidavit in support of the notice of motion of the applicant filed before the learned Single Judge in the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 7 October 2003 which itself was preferred with delay of almost 15 years. In paragraph 12 (page 84) the applicant in fact has stated as under:-

¶26

“12. After gaining knowledge about passing of ex-parte decree dated 7^th October 2003, the defendant no.1 preferred an application for certified copies of entire proceedings of original suit and the same was received on 18^th January 2018. After perusal of said record, it appears that one Bhavesha Suresh Goradia, claiming herself to be one of the beneficiaries of Parikh-Goradia Trust, had filed Suit No.2865 of 1994 essentially against defendant No.1 seeking injunction and damages. Initially, defendant No.1A was

¶27

3 16NMA801-18-RPAL20-18

¶28

pvr

¶29

not joined as a party defendant in original suit.”

¶30

Considering the averments, we are not satisfied with the objection as raised on behalf of respondent no.1. The statements as made in the affidavits are quite distinct. In the earlier affidavit, the applicant says about obtaining certified copies of the record and in the present affidavit in paragraph 5(ii) the applicant says that search was taken of the original file, which took time. We therefore, do not entertain the objection as raised on behalf of respondent no.1.

¶31

We accordingly allow the notice of motion in terms of prayer clause (i) and (ii).

¶32

Review Petition (lodg) No.20 of 2018.

¶33

We have heard the learned Counsel for the review

¶34

petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1. We have perused the record and our judgment/order dated 9 July 2018 of which the review is sought.

¶35

Having perused the grounds as raised in the review petition and various documents as placed on record including letter dated 18 July 1997 (page 181 of the paper book) as addressed by Narayanan & Narayanan Advocate to the Advocate for Respondent no.1 (M/s.Pandya Gandhi & Co.), we find that there is no error apparent on the face of the order or any other ground is made out, so that we can exercise our jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to

¶36

pvr 4 16NMA801-18-RPAL20-18

¶37

review our judgment/order dated 9 July 2018.

¶38

Review petition is accordingly rejected.

¶39

As review petition is disposed of as aforesaid, pending Notice of Motion (st) no.1020 of 2018 does not survive. It is disposed

¶40

of.

¶41

[G.S. KULKARNI, J.] [ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE]

Aviation Travels Private Limited v. Bhavesh Suresh Goradia and 23 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aviation Travels Private Limited v. Bhavesh Suresh Goradia and 23 Ors.

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

Arjinder Singh Purewal Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 2 Ors.

Mr. Mohammad Hussain Abdul Azeez Ansari Vs the Commissioner, Bhiwandi Nizampura City Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shah Mohammed Choudhary Vs Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai

Aviation Travels Private Limited Vs Bhavesh Suresh Goradia and 23 Ors.

Sayyad Riyzuddin Hajaratulla and 3 Ors. Vs Municipal Commissioner, Mcgm 4 Ors.

Sarva Shramik Sangh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.