Dismissed

Tabassum Abdul Sattar v. Jan Mahila Sarees Pvt. Ltd. and 9 Ors.

Bombay HC7 Aug 2019APP/432/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an appeal and a notice of motion because the appellant failed to deposit Rs. 10,00,000 mandated by a previous interim order of the same bench by the stipulated time. The main proceedings remain pending.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed and the present Notice of Motion is also dismissed due to non-deposit of Rs. 10,00,000.

Tabassum Abdul Sattar Vs Jan Mahila Sarees Pvt. Ltd. and 9… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

suresh

¶2

914&914.1-NMALG-687.2019.doc

¶3

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

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION {L} NO.687 OF 2019 IN

¶5

APPEAL {L} NO.341 OF 2019

¶6

Tabassum Abdul Sattar .... Applicant In the matter between Tabassum Abdul Sattar .... Appellant Vs. Jan Mahila Sarees Pvt. Ltd. & Others .... Respondents

¶7

WITH

¶8

APPEAL {L} NO.341 OF 2019 IN

¶9

NOTICE OF MOTION {L} NO.1553 OF 2019 IN SUIT [L] NO.727 OF 2019

¶10

Tabassum Abdul Sattar .... Appellant Vs. Jan Mahila Sarees Pvt. Ltd. & Others .... Respondents

¶11

Ms Sanjana Pardeshi i/by Law Global for the Appellant/Applicant. Mr. Rohit Gupta with Ms Ketki Minhas i/by H&M Legal Associates for Respondent No.8.

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

suresh

¶14

914&914.1-NMALG-687.2019.doc

¶15

CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & G.S. PATEL, JJ.

¶16

DATE : AUGUST 07, 2019

¶17

P.C:

¶18

The Appeal is challenging an order of the learned single Judge which is an ad-interim order and the main proceedings, namely, the Notice of Motion and the Suit are pending. The applicant/appellant was given an indulgence only because her counsel Mr. Subhash Jha said on the earlier occasion, on her instructions, that forcible possession will be taken of the flat occupied by her by the ICICI Bank. The ICICI Bank claims this to be its security.

¶19

Since there were allegations made of fraud and collusion, particularly against the Bank officials, we granted indulgence and had the appellant deposited Rs.10,00,000/(Rupees Ten Lakhs) in this Court, we would have then considered her Appeal. Since our order passed on the previous occasion, namely, 23-7-2019 is self-operative and the amount of

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

914&914.1-NMALG-687.2019.doc

¶22

suresh

¶23

Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) has not been deposited before the time stipulated in our order, this Appeal fails and is dismissed. Consequently, the present Notice of Motion is also dismissed.

¶24

(G.S. PATEL, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶25

Page 3 of 3

Tabassum Abdul Sattar v. Jan Mahila Sarees Pvt. Ltd. and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tabassum Abdul Sattar v. Jan Mahila Sarees Pvt. Ltd. and 9 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

Ramchandra Jagannath Yeole and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Ashfaq Parkar Vs State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary , Ministry of Minority Affairs and Ors.

Mayuri D/O Madhavrao Alewad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Tabassum Abdul Sattar Vs Jan Mahila Sarees Pvt. Ltd. and 9 Ors.

Avinash Ramchandra Bhojane Vs the Land Manager and Competent Authority, Mhada and Another

Esmart Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. through Executive Dire. Mr. Anand Prakash Rai Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Office of Gp and Ors.