Disposed

Narayaniprasad Jagdamba Singh v. Sanjay Construction and Finance Company Ltd.

Bombay HC6 Feb 2024CP/350/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contempt petition over shortfall in usable carpet area and identification of allotted units was disposed of after the respondent undertook to pay for any shortfall based on the higher of latest sale instances or ready reckoner, showed earmarked units on the sanctioned plan, and committed to complete amalgamation or payment within six months.

What the court decided

AI extract

Narayaniprasad Jagdamba Singh Vs Sanjay Construction and… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

 3-CP-350-2023.docx

¶2

rrpillai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 350 OF 2023

¶5

Narayaniprasad Jagdamba Singh … Petitioner Vs.

¶6

Sanjay Construction and Finance Co. Ltd. … Respondent

¶7

Mr. Amogh Singh a/w. Mr. Rahul Arora i/b. Mr. Jeet Gandhi for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Rohan Sawant a/w. Mr. Laxman Jain i/b. Mr. Yogesh Adhia for Respondent No. 1.

¶9

Mr. S. L. Babar, AGP for the State.

¶10

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

¶11

DATE : 6^th FEBRUARY 2024

¶12

P.C.

¶13

In terms of order dated 29^th January 2024 learned counsel for

¶14

respondent no. 1 on instructions states that in the event there is any

¶15

shortfall in handing over usable carpet area to the petitioner,

¶16

respondent no. 1 undertakes to make payment for the said shortfall

¶17

calculated on the basis of the latest sale instances or ready reckoner

¶18

whichever is higher.

¶19

Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Date: 2024.02.09 13:37:43 +0530

¶20

RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI

¶21

1/2

¶22

 3-CP-350-2023.docx

¶23

So far as identifying the premises on the sanctioned plan is concerned, respondent no. 1 has shown the sanctioned plan to the learned counsel for the petitioner right now in the court pointing out the units that are earmarked for the petitioner.

¶24

Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 on instructions further states that the application for amalgamation of the four units and/or payment for the shortfall, if any, will be completed within a period of six months from today.

¶25

The undertakings given in affidavit dated 22^nd January 2024 filed in the present Contempt Petition are accepted.

¶26

In view of the aforesaid, no further adjudication is required with respect to the grievance in the Contempt Petition.

¶27

Contempt Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

¶28

[GAURI GODSE, J.]

¶29

2/2

Narayaniprasad Jagdamba Singh v. Sanjay Construction and Finance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Narayaniprasad Jagdamba Singh v. Sanjay Construction and Finance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mita Romit Rudani Vs Govind Maruti Bodke, Collector and District Magistrate of Palghar and Ors.

Smt. Taibai Gamjya Choudhari Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Minister Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Mr. Dattatray Baburao Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Maharashtra

The Managing Director Sahakari Shiromani Vasantrao Kale Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rekha Ramji Dharod Vs the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors.

Raigad Zilla Daru Vikreta Sangh through President M.K.Bahira Vs the State of Maharashtra through Princ.Secretary (State Excise) and Ors.