The High Court of Bombay allowed two cross appeals by quashing and setting aside impugned orders under Section 9A of CPC. The Bench held the orders were nullities based on Supreme Court precedents, without examining the merits of the suit.
Impugned order quashed and set aside; appeals allowed. Case remanded to proceed on own merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Digitally signed by LAXMIKANT LAXMIKANT GOPAL GOPAL CHANDAN CHANDAN Date: 2023.07.24 12:20:06 +0530 (903&904) APP-180.17&APP-52.19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO. 180 OF 2017
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1469 OF 2014
IN
SUIT NO.1015 OF 2014
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.798 OF 2018
IN
APPEAL NO.180 OF 2017
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.946 OF 2017
IN
APPEAL NO.180 OF 2017
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2319 OF 2023
IN
APPEAL NO.180 OF 2017.
Fizzah Navnitlal Shah : Appellant W/o. Navnitlal Ratanji Shah (Orig. Defendant No.2)
versus
Chetan Navnitlal Shah and ors. : Respondents.
ALONG WITH
APPEAL NO.52 OF 2019
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1469 OF 2014
IN
SUIT NO.1015 OF 2014
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2320 OF 2023
IN
APPEAL NO.52 OF 2019
1 of 3
lgc
(903&904) APP-180.17&APP-52.19.doc Chetan Navnitlal Shah : Appellant/Original Respondent/ Plaintiff. Versus Fizzah Navnitlal Shah W/o Navnitlal Ratanji Shah and ors. : Respondents.
Mr. Rashmin Khandekar with Ms. Kirtida Chandarana and Mr. Naozad Golwalla i/by Mr. Mahernosh Humranwala for the Appellant in Appeal No.180 of 2017 and for Respondent No.1 in Appeal No.52 of 2019.
Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Shayan Dasgupta, Ms. Nidhi Kulkarni, Mr. Devendra Orak and Ms. Khushboo Bhatt i/by Khaitan & Co. for the Appellant in Appeal No. 52 of 2019 and for Respondent No. 1 in Appeal No.180 of 2017.
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR, ACTING CJ. & ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
DATED : 20 JULY 2023.
P.C. :
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
consent.
2 of 3
lgc
(903&904) APP-180.17&APP-52.19.doc
legal position laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court firstly in the case of Nusli Neville Wadia v/s. Ivory Properties and ors.1 and subsequent decisions, the last being the decision of the Appeal Bench of this Court in the case of Sabita Rajesh Narang v/s. Sandeep Gopal Raheja and others,2 that the impugned order would be a nullity and will have to be set aside and thereafter suit will have to be proceed on its own merits.
(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)
(ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
1(2020) 6 SCC 557
22023 SCC OnLine 846
3 of 3
lgc
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order under Section 9A of CPC would be a nullity and needs to be set aside.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nusli Neville Wadia v/s. Ivory Properties and ors.Referred¶49
(2020) 6 SCC 557 · Who else cites this
Sabita Rajesh Narang v/s. Sandeep Gopal Raheja and othersReferred¶49
2023 SCC OnLine 846 · Who else cites this
Chetan Navnitlal Shah
Fizzah Navnitlal Shah
Nitin Jamdar
Arif S. Doctor
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court