Dismissed

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Neel Enterprises and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Apr 2024EXA/18/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed multiple execution applications filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited against Neel Enterprises. Due to over twelve months of inactivity without receiving instructions from the claimants despite being granted a final chance, the Judge held no useful purpose in retaining them and dismissed them under Rule 329.

What did the court decide?

Execution Applications stood dismissed under Rule 329 of the High Court Original Sides Rules, 1980.

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs Neel Enterprises… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 2 to 14 exa 18-17 adn ors-os.doc

¶2

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

¶3

EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.18 OF 2017

¶4

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited … Applicant Vs. Neel Enterprises and anr. … Respondents

¶5

Digitally signed by PRIYA PRIYA RAJESH RAJESH SOPARKAR SOPARKAR Date: 2024.04.19 15:35:14 +0530

¶6

WITH EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.326 OF 2017 WITH EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.327 OF 2017 WITH EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.328 OF 2017 WITH EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.329 OF 2017 WITH EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.330 OF 2017 WITH EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.331 OF 2017 WITH EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.332 OF 2017 WITH EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.333 OF 2017 WITH EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.334 OF 2017 WITH EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.336 OF 2017 WITH EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.338 OF 2017 WITH EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.339 OF 2017

¶7

Ms. Bijal Gogri i/by M/s O. M. Gujar Law Chambers, Advocate for the Applicants. None for the Respondents.

1 of 3

Priya R. Soparkar

2 2 to 14 exa 18-17 adn ors-os.doc

¶12

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 18 APRIL, 2024.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

These Execution Applications have been listed for dismissal under Rule 329 of the High Court Original Sides Rules, 1980.

¶15

On 4^th April, 2024, the following order was passed :

¶16

“1. These matters were on board today for dismissal under Rule 329 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 since no steps have been taken by the Claimant/Decree Holders for twelve months form the date of filing of the captioned Execution Applications. Rule 329 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 provides as follow;

¶17

“R.329. Non-prosecution of application for execution ---When a party does not proceed with the application for execution for a period of twelve months from the date of filing of application, the Prothonotary and Senior Master shall place application before the Judge in Chambers for dismissal for want of prosecution. The Judge may pass such orders thereon as he may think.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the Applicants, however, makes a request for one last chance in order to obtain instructions from the Claimants as to whether the Claimants are desirous of proceeding with these Execution Applications.

¶19

Hence at the request of learned counsel for the Claimants, as and by way of absolute last chance, these Execution Applications are adjourned for a period of two weeks. Stand over to 18^th April 2024. ”

¶20

2 of 3

¶21

Priya R. Soparkar

¶22

3 2 to 14 exa 18-17 adn ors-os.doc

¶23

Today when the matters are called out, Ms. Bijal Gogri, learned counsel appears for the Applicants and once again seeks time as a last chance.

¶24

It is observed from the order dated 4^th April, 2024 that an absolute last chance was granted and the matters were stood over to today. Therefore, no further time can be granted. The party has not proceeded with the Applications for execution for a period of more than twelve months from the date of filing those Applications. I do not think any useful purpose would be served in keeping these Applications pending, as no instructions have been received by the learned Advocate for the Applicants till date.

¶25

Accordingly, the Execution Applications stand dismissed under Rule

¶26

329 of the High Court Original Sides Rules, 1980.

¶27

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

¶28

3 of 3

¶29

Priya R. Soparkar

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Neel Enterprises and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Neel Enterprises and Anr.

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

Atcom Technologies Ltd. vs Y.a.Chunawala and Co. and Anr.

Samartha Development Corporation vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Pinak Bharat and Co. vs Anil Ramrao Naik

Landmark Corporation Private Limited vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited

Western Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Aar Dee Extrusions (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Rafiq Ahmed Gafoor Multani vs Shaid Ahmed Gafoor Multani