Disposed

Thomas Albert Netto v. Ajit Dattaram Ambekar and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Oct 2021IA/1284/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought leave to withdraw the writ petition. Court granted leave. Petitioner handed over keys of suit premises to Respondent No.2. Court disposed of petition as withdrawn and interim application by death. Petitioner's claims against Respondent No.1 kept open.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to withdraw the petition unconditionally. Keys handed over to Respondent No.2. Petition and Interim Application disposed off.

Thomas Albert Netto Vs Ajit Dattaram Ambekar and Anr. — Bombay HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Tandale

¶2

 1-WP-2371-2021 with Ia-1284-2021.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2371 OF 2021

¶6

WITH

¶7

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1284 OF 2021

¶8

Thomas Albert Netto… Petitioner.
V/s.

¶9

Ajit Dattaram Ambekar and Anr.

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

Mr.Kunal Mehta a/w Mr.Robin Fernandes and Ms.Prakriti Shah i/b. Vesta
Legal for the Petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Kunal Bhange i/b. Mr. Akshay Pawar for Respondent No.1.
Mr.Raj Patel i/b. Mr. Mohan P. Patel for Respondent No.2.

¶13

CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J.
DATE : 26th October, 2021.

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

1. Present Petition was heard at length yesterday.

¶16

After hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioner, when this

¶17

Court expressed its disinclination to interfere with the impugned Order dated

¶18

24th March, 2021, Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the Petitioner had sought
time to take instructions in that behalf. The Petition was therefore adjourned
today.

¶19

2.Today, Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the Petitioner, on

¶20

instructions from the Petitioner, who is personally present in the Court, seeks
leave to withdraw the Petition unconditionally.

¶21

Leave granted.

¶22

1/2

¶23

Tandale

¶24

 1-WP-2371-2021 with Ia-1284-2021.odt

¶25

3.At this stage, Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the Petitioner
submitted that, he is no more interested in detaining the suit premises and
today vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises and the keys of it
are being handed over to the Respondent No.2, who is personally present in
the Court.

¶26

Mr. Mehta, learned counsel in fact handed over keys of suit
premises to Mr.Patel, learned counsel, on behalf of Respondent No.2, who
acknowledged the receipt of the same.

¶27

4.It is needless to mention here that, as per terms and conditions of
the Leave and Licence Agreement dated 5th February, 2014 and in particular
Clause No.25 therein, the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 are jointly and
severally liable to pay the License fees to the Respondent No.2.

¶28

The Competent Authority will take into consideration the said
aspect while finally deciding the Eviction Application No.193 of 2019 filed by
the Respondent No.2.

¶29

5.It is further clarified that, the rights and contentions of the
Petitioner against the Respondent No.1 independently and as may be
permissible under the provisions of law are expressly kept open.

¶30

6. Petition is disposed off as withdrawn with aforesaid terms.

¶31

7.In view of the disposal off the Petition itself, Interim Application
No.1284 of 2021 does not survive and is accordingly disposed off.

¶32

Digitally signed MANOJ R by MANOJ RTANDALE TANDALE Date: 2021.10.29 14:49:44 +0530

¶33

2/2

Thomas Albert Netto v. Ajit Dattaram Ambekar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas Albert Netto v. Ajit Dattaram Ambekar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Gorgeous Skin Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs S. H. a. M. K. Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Through Ms. Mountmary Nadar

Indu Nissan Oxo Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs Indo Nippon Chemical Comapnay Limited

Prabhakar Popatrao Pingale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Thomas Albert Netto Vs Ajit Dattaram Ambekar and Anr.

Lankesh @ Babya Sanjay Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Smt. Rashmi Ramesh Mhatre and Others Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Thr. Its Principal Officer and Others