Allowed

M/S. Kering Patil Assoicates and Another v. M/S. Vitoria Thr. Partners

Bombay HC14 Jan 2022CRA/99/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay allowed the civil revision application by consent, quashing an order that dismissed the applicants' suit. Consequently, the suit was withdrawn, and the applicants were granted liberty to file a fresh suit subject to limitation laws. Subject matters include tenancy and procedure.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; suit deemed withdrawn; liberty granted to file fresh suit subject to limitation.

M/S. Kering Patil Assoicates and Another Vs M/S. Vitoria… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

(12)-CRA-99-21.doc .

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Digitally signed by BALAJI BALAJIGOVINDRAO GOVINDRAOPANCHAL PANCHAL Date: 2022.01.14 16:14:28 +0530

¶4

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.99 OF 2021

¶5

M/s. Kering Patil Associates and Anr. ..Applicants
Versus
M/s. Vitoria
Through its Partners ..Respondents

¶6

Mr. Vishal Kanade a/w Mr. Mohan B. Jadhav, for the Applicants.
Mr. Drupad Patil i/by Dheeraj Patil, for Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4.

¶7

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

¶8

 DATE : 14th JANUARY, 2022

¶9

P.C.

¶10

1. The present revision application by consent can be
allowed by quashing the order impugned based on the rider
provided in the judgment of Haldiram Bhujiawala and Another Vs.
Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar and Another reported in (2000) 3 SCC
250.

¶11

2. As such, the suit preferred by the applicants being
Special Civil Suit No.398 of 2012 stood withdrawn as prayed vide
Exh.72.

¶12

3. Applicants shall be at liberty to file fresh suit after
registration of the firm subject to the rider that the suit claimed is
within limitation and is not hit by any other provisions of the
Limitation Act.

¶13

BGP. 1 o f 2

¶14

(12)-CRA-99-21.doc .

¶15

4. In view of above, the order impugned dated 23rd
February, 2021 passed below Exh.72 is quashed and set aside.

¶16

5. The revision application stands allowed in the above

¶17

terms.

¶18

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]

¶19

2 o f 2

¶20

BGP.

M/S. Kering Patil Assoicates and Another v. M/S. Vitoria Thr. Partners

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Kering Patil Assoicates and Another v. M/S. Vitoria Thr. Partners

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Jagruti Omkar Awasarkar Vs Shri. Omkar Pradip Awasarkar

Smt. Sayali Pavan Vaychal @ Sayali Anil Ganbavale Vs Pavan Anil Vaychal

Sou. Rasilaben Mulchand Shaha Vs the Commissioner Sangli, Miraj and Kupwad City Municipal Corporation

Purav Construction and Anr. Vs Smt. Smita Jagdish Yagnik and Anr.

Sitaram Govind Panse and Anr. Vs Laxman Govind Panse

Giridhar Sudamrao Pansare Thr. Poa. Vinay Giridhar Pansare Vs Kailas Prabhakar Shelar and Ors.