Dismissed

Shyam Rochiram Godhwani v. Lajwanti Gopichand Godhwani and 5 Ors.

Bombay HC18 Jan 2019APP/117/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order dismissed an appeal against a notice of motion clarifying TDS payment. The court held the appeal was not maintainable as the order did not adjudicate any right of the appellant, noting a separate matter regarding property shares stands concluded against him.

What did the court decide?

The appeal against the order clarifying TDS payment was dismissed.

Shyam Rochiram Godhwani Vs Lajwanti Gopichand… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

APPL 458.18.-18-01-19.doc

¶2

¶3

JPP

¶4

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

¶5

APPEAL (LODG.) NO. 458 OF 2018

¶6

¶7

COURT RECEIVERS REPORT NO. 125 OF 2018

¶8

¶9

NOTICE OF MOTION (LODG.) NO. 1918 OF 2019

¶10

in SUIT NO. 3394 OF 2008 with

¶11

COURT RECEIVERS REPORT NO. 267 OF 2018

¶12

Shyam Rochiram Godhawani … Appellant

¶13

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

¶14

Shyam Roachiram Godhwani … Orig. Defendant No.1 V/s.

¶15

Mrs. Lajwanti Gopichand Godhwani & Ors. ... Respondent No.1/ Orig.Plaintiff No.1

¶16

Mr. Ramesh Chandra Mishra for the Appellant

¶17

Mr. Ajay Panicker a/w. Amit Kakri I/b. Ajay Law Assoc. for Respondents 1 and 2.

¶18

Mr. Gauraj Shah I/b. Kanga & Co. for Respondents 3 and 4. Ms. Khyati Pandit I/b. Dhru & Co. for Respondent 5. Mr. D.R. Shetty, Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay present.

¶19

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL,C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J.

¶20

DATE: 18 January 2019.

¶21

APPL 458.18.-18-01-19.doc

¶22

¶23

P.C.:-

¶24

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶25

The Appellant – Defendant No.1 has challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge in a Notice of Motion taken out in the Court Receivers Report. The order is challenged on the premise that the learned Single Judge has decided the shares of the parties in Suit No. 3394 of 2008 to the detriment of the Appellant.

¶26

The perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Single Judge has only given certain clarification in respect of payment of a statutory liability of the TDS as payable. During the hearing of this Notice of Motion in which clarification regarding payment of TDS was given, the Appellant, who was present in person sought to contend that he has 50% right in the flat in question. The learned Counsel for the Respondents pointed out that this issue stands decided against the Appellant up to the Supreme Court. Reference was made to the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 15 November 2017, and this order is also confirmed in Appeal by order dated 19 September 2018. The learned Single Judge was right in observing that the Appellant cannot rake up the issues which are concluded, whenever the matter comes up on the board. The impugned order passed is only in

¶27

3 904. APPL 458.18.-18-01-19.doc

¶28

respect of payment of TDS, and as far as the issue now sought to be raised by the Appellant regarding his right, the impugned order does not decide the same, but the learned Single Judge has only referred to the earlier orders passed which concludes the issue against the Appellant.

¶29

In these circumstances, there is no merit in this Appeal, apart from the fact that the Respondents have objected that the Appeal is not maintainable as the impugned order does not decide any right of the Appellant. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶30

N.M. JAMDAR, J. CHIEF JUSTICE

Shyam Rochiram Godhwani v. Lajwanti Gopichand Godhwani and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Rochiram Godhwani v. Lajwanti Gopichand Godhwani and 5 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

Datta Shrirang Mane Vs Best Workers Union and 2 Ors.

M/S. Polycab Wires Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Eta Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

Nirved Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs Karvy Financial Services Limited

Allauddin D. Khan and Anr. Vs the Deputy Collector (Western Suburban) and 7 Ors.

Swarup Group of Industries Vs National Agricultural Co-Op. Marketing Federation of India Ltd. (Nafed) and Anr.

Shri. Sanjay Dnyanoba Doke Vs Jalindar Bhagwan Doke and Ors.