Dismissed
Naman Madhav Patel v. Jetu Jaques Taru Lalwania and 4 Ors.
Bombay HCIA/1881/2020
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY…
What the court decided
AI extract
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.
14-app-28-21.doc
1 / 2
Digitally signed by MEERA MEERA MAHESH MAHESH JADHAV JADHAV Date:2023.04.11 11:06:55 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO.28 OF 2021
IN
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.731 OF 2005
IN
EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.192 OF 2002
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.491 OF 1999
Naman Mahadev Patel….Appellant
V/s.
Jetu Jaques Taru Lalwania & Ors
…Respondents
WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.32778 OF 2022
IN
APPEAL NO.28 OF 2021
----
Mr. Sunip Sen, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Amit Shroff, Ms Ashna Shah, Ms
Jyoti Ghag and Mr. Vishal Sapre i/b Dua Associates for Appellant.
Mr. Yatin Shah for Respondent No.1.
----
CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &
RAJESH S. PATIL JJ
DATED : 10th APRIL 2023
P.C. :
1 Appellant is impugning an order dated 22nd January 2020 passed by aLearned Single Judge of this court.2 One of the issue that was to be decided by the Learned Single Judgein the impugned order was, whether the gift of the share certificate by Mr.
B. N. Patel to Mr. Naman Patel is vitiated because of fraud ? The Learned
Single Judge answered the issue by observing that it was incumbent upon
appellant to prove the document of gift deed dated 5th August 1993 and
Meera Jadhav
14-app-28-21.doc
2 / 2
neither original document is placed on record, nor the same has been
proved in any manner known to law. The court went on to answer that
since the document itself has not been proved, the question of answering
whether it is vitiated by fraud, does not arise. That is how we read
paragraph 8 of the impugned order.
3Mr. Sen very fairly states that appellant did not bring to the notice of
the Learned Single Judge the order dated 20th July 2005 passed in Chamber
Summons No.731 of 2005 because according to Mr. Sen, the issue as framed
presupposed that there was a gift deed in place. Mr. Sen states that in the
order of 20th July 2005, the Judgment Creditor has admitted that there is a
gift deed but according to Judgment Creditor it is not a valid gift deed.
4In the impugned order, this order of 20th July 2005 has not been
brought to the notice of the court, for the court to consider whether even in
such circumstances, the gift deed had to be proved independently.
5In the circumstances, Mr. Sen seeks leave of the court to withdraw the
appeal with liberty to file review petition.
6Keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties, appeal
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
7 Consequently, interim application also stands disposed.(RAJESH S PATIL, J.)(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)
Meera Jadhav
Naman Mahadev Patel
Jetu Jaques Taru Lalwania
Rajesh S. Patil
K.R. Shriram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court