Disposed

Kashinath Jairam Shetye v. Deelip Raghavendra Shetye and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC18 Mar 2021MCA/40/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Goa disposed of a miscellaneous civil application to condone delay and implead legal representatives of a deceased appellant, a minor daughter as a respondent, and the former wife as a respondent, directing specific service procedures.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; legal representative of deceased appellant, minor daughter, and former wife impleaded; private service permitted; amendment and service steps directed within one week.

Kashinath Jairam Shetye Vs Deelip Raghavendra Shetye and 2 Ors. — Bombay HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

 MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.40 OF 2021
 IN

¶4

 SECOND APPEAL NO.11 OF 2010

¶5

KASHINATH JAIRAM SHETYE…Applicant
VS
DEELIP RAGHAVENDRA SHETYE
AND 2 ORS...Respondents

¶6

Mr. Ryan Menezes and Mr. Nigel Fernandes, Advocates for the
Applicant.

¶7

Ms. Tanvi Kamat Ghanekar, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶8

Coram : M. S. SONAK, J
Date : 18th March 2021

¶9

P.C.

¶10

 Heard Mr. R. Menezes, learned counsel for the Applicant.

¶11

He points out that the Appellant No.1 has since expired and therefore,
this application has been taken out to condone the delay and bring on
record the legal representatives of the deceased Appellant No.1.

¶12

2.Mr. Menezes submits that the deceased Appellant No.1
Srikrishna was married to Ms. Sangeeta. However, this marriage was
dissolved by a decree of divorce and therefore according to him,
Ms. Sangeeta is not required to be impleaded to these proceedings.
Mr. Menezes also stated that Ms. Divya, the only daughter who is now
sought to be brought on record is a minor. He also stated that since the

¶13

¶14

relationship between the surviving Appellant No.2 and said Ms. Divya is
a bit strained, a prayer is made to implead Ms. Divya as the Respondent
to this appeal.

¶15

3.This application has not opposed by Ms. Tanvi Kamat
Ghanekar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

¶16

4.Accordingly, the delay in filing this application is hereby
condoned. Ms. Divya Shetye is permitted to be impleaded as
Respondent No.4. However, Ms. Divya Shetye will have to be
represented by her natural guardian Ms. Sangeeta Shetye.

¶17

5.In addition, even Ms. Sangeeta Shetye is directed to be
impleaded as Respondent No.5 without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of the surviving Appellant No.2.

¶18

6.Amendment to be carried out within one week from today.
Thereafter, the steps to be taken to effect service upon the Respondent
Nos.4 and 5. Accordingly, issue notice to these newly impleaded parties,
returnable on 15th April 2021.

¶19

7.In addition to the usual mode of service, the private
service/Humdast is permitted.

¶20

¶21

8.The surviving Appellant to take necessary steps including
the payment of process fees within a period of one week from today.
The surviving Appellant to file affidavit of service.

¶22

9.The Misc. Civil Application No.40 of 2021 is disposed of in
the aforesaid terms.

¶23

M. S. SONAK, J.

¶24

at*

¶25

TARI AMRUT NAGESH Digitally signed by TARI AMRUT NAGESH Date: 2021.03.18 14:13:56 +05'30'

Kashinath Jairam Shetye v. Deelip Raghavendra Shetye and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashinath Jairam Shetye v. Deelip Raghavendra Shetye 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

Harichandra Vitola Porobo Aliso Known as Horichondar Vitto Porobo and 3 Ors., Vs Narana Pandu Porobo Gauncar (Deceased) and 8 Ors.

Vithal Harishchandra Porob., Vs Narana Pandu Porobo Gauncar (Deceased) and 8 Ors.

Amiantit Fiberglass Industries India Pvt. Ltd. (in Liquidation), Thr. Official Liquidator., Vs Corportation Bank, Panaji.

Ots Ltd., Rep. Herein by Its Director, Rajendra Kumar Gupta., Vs Pramod Damodar Borker and 2 Ors.

Communidade of Mapusa through Its Attorney Mr. Antonio Braganza Vs Prabhavati Prabhakar Parob and Anr.

Shri Baburao Tukaram Mangale Vs Mrs. Ratnadeep Builders Represented by Its Sole Proprietor, Mr. Madhav N. Naik Kundaikar