Dismissed

M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co.Ltd v. Sudarshan S Borade and Alka Sudarshan Borade

Bombay HC25 Jul 2023EXA/1008/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this execution application, the claimant did not appear. The court noted the application remained dormant for over six years without prosecution or reports on warrant execution. Consequently, the application was dismissed under Rule 329 regarding non-prosecution, disposing of interim proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The execution application was dismissed under Rule 329. Interim proceedings were disposed of. Judgment debtors granted liberty to lift attachment.

M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co.Ltd Vs… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Digitally signed by LAXMIKANT LAXMIKANT GOPAL GOPAL CHANDAN CHANDAN Date: 2023.07.26 14:11:37 +0530

¶2

1 (15) EXA-1008.17.doc

¶3

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

¶4

EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 1008 OF 2017

¶5

M/s. Cholamandalam Investment &

¶6

Finance Co. Ltd. ….. Claimant Vs.

¶7

Sudarshan S Borade S/o Sadashiv Namdev B orade and anr. ….. Respondents.

¶8

None for the Claimant.

¶9

CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. DATE : 25th July 2023

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Today when the matter was called out, none appeared for the

¶12

Claimant.

¶13

The present matter is on board for dismissal under Rule 329 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. Rule 329 reads thus:-

¶14

“ R.329. Non-prosecution of application for execution .---- When

¶15

a party does not proceed with the application for execution for a period of twelve months from the date of the filing of application, the Prothonotary and Senior Master shall place the

¶16

1 of 3

¶17

LGC

¶18

2 (15) EXA-1008.17.doc

¶19

application before the Judge in Chambers for dismissal for want of prosecution. The Judge may pass such orders thereon as he may think fit.”

¶20

This is an Execution Application of the year 2017 and the same has not been prosecuted for well over a period of 12 months, in fact for over 6 years from the date of filing.

¶21

None appears for the Claimant to show cause as to why the matter ought not to be dismissed.

¶22

The record however reflects that in the year 2017 warrants of attachment have been issued to the Respondents, but there is no report on record to show whether or not the same have infact been executed. There is also no Application seeking issuance of fresh warrants or for an extension of time.

¶23

In view thereof, the Execution Application stands dismissed in terms of Rule 329 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. In view of dismissal of the Execution Application, the interim proceedings, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶24

2 of 3

¶25

LGC

¶26

3 (15) EXA-1008.17.doc

¶27

In the event, if it is found that the property is attached under the warrants of attachment issued in this matter, the judgment debtors are granted liberty to take necessary steps as are available in law for lifting the attachment.

¶28

(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)

¶29

3 of 3

¶30

LGC

M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co.Ltd v. Sudarshan S Borade and Alka Sudarshan Borade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co.Ltd v. Sudarshan S Borade and Alka Sudarshan Borade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Macrotech Developers Ltd. vs Ayesha Danish Mukadam

Kr Construction vs State of Maharashtra

Manish Sheth vs Ketan Sheth

Ambrish H. Soni vs Chetan Narendra Dhakan

M/S. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. Vs Ganesh Prabhakar Narkar and 2 Ors.

M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. Vs Jayadevi Pandey and Anr.