Dismissed

Edelweiss Retail Finance Limited v. Aashiq Steel Industries through Proprietor Aashiq Aabas Yasinali Mookhy and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Jan 2024EXA/867/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed multiple execution applications filed by various decree holders against judgment debtors under Rule 329 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. The dismissal was ordered because the decree holders failed to take any steps to proceed with the applications for a period of twelve months or more.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of execution applications for want of prosecution.

Edelweiss Retail Finance Limited Vs Aashiq Steel… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Digitally signed by LAXMIKANT LAXMIKANT GOPAL GOPAL CHANDAN CHANDAN Date: 2024.01.09 13:01:08 +0530

¶2

1 (3) EXA-236.19&ors.doc

¶3

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

¶4

EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.236 OF 2019

¶5

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. : Decree Holder Vs. Kavita Anand Bhagat : Judgment Debtor.

¶6

WITH EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.240 OF 2019 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. : Decree Holder Vs. Najib Hanif Khan : Judgment Debtor

¶7

WITH EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.299 OF 2019 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. : Decree Holder Vs. Umesh Mohan Mangaonkar : Judgment Debtor.

¶8

WITH EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.302 OF 2019 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. : Decree Holder Vs. Dinesh Ramesh Mayavanshi : Judgment Debtor.

¶9

1 of 5

¶10

LGC

¶11

2 (3) EXA-236.19&ors.doc

¶12

WITH EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.305 OF 2019

¶13

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. : Decree Holder Vs. Amitraj Nanaprakash Naidu : Judgment Debtor. WITH EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.717 OF 2019 Bajaj Finance Ltd. : Claimant. Vs. Sanket Parshuram Koli : Respondent.

¶14

WITH EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.867 OF 2019 Edelweiss Retail Finance Limited : Decree Holder Vs. Aashiq Steel Industries Through Proprietor Aashiq Aabas Yasinali Mookhy & anr. : Judgment Debtor WITH EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.874 OF 2019 Edelweiss Retail Finance Limited : Decree Holder Vs. Tejasvi Creation Through its Proprietor Mr. Sharad Anant More and ors. : Judgment Debtors.

¶15

2 of 5

¶16

LGC

¶17

3 (3) EXA-236.19&ors.doc

¶18

WITH

¶19

EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.900 OF 2019

¶20

Bajaj Finance Ltd. : Claimant Vs. Dilip Ashok Bhatkar : Respondent.

¶21

WITH EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.944 OF 2019

¶22

Edelweiss Retail Finance Limited : Decree Holder Vs. Priyanka Fashion Through its Proprietor Mr. Hitendra Girdharlal Karia & anr. : Judgment Debtors.

¶23

WITH EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.958 OF 2019 Toyota Financial Services India Ltd. : Decree Holder Vs. Waves Travels : Judgment Debtor WITH EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.1081 OF 2019 Gati Kintetsu Express Private Limited : Claimant Vs. Omnipresent Retail India Pvt. Ltd. : Respondents.

¶24

3 of 5

¶25

LGC

¶26

4 (3) EXA-236.19&ors.doc

¶27

WITH EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.1117 OF 2019 Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited : Claimant Vs. Ganesh Pansare : Respondent. WITH EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.1129 OF 2019 Toyota Financial Services India Ltd. : Decree Holder Vs. Safar Tour and Travels and anr. : Judgment Debtors. WITH EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.1130 OF 2019 Toyota Financial Services India Ltd. : Decree Holder Vs. Pelican Services Smart Lease Through its Proprietor Chandran S Kulvan : Judgment Debtor WITH EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.1267 OF 2019 Lokmanya Multipurpose Cooperative Society Ltd. : Decree Holder Vs. Narendra Ganpat Palande and ors. : Judgment Debtors.

¶28

4 of 5

¶29

LGC

¶30

None for the Claimants/Decree Holders.

¶31

CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. DATE : 08th JANUARY 2024

¶32

P.C. :

¶33

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 Applicants for twelve months from the date of filing of the captioned Execution Applications. Rule 329 of Bombay High Court Rules, 1980 provides as follows;

¶34

“ 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 the filing of application, the Prothonotary and Senior Master shall place the application before the Judge in Chambers for dismissal for want of prosecution. The Judge may pass such orders thereon as he may think fit.”

¶35

Given that despite the passage of over four years, the

¶36

Claimants/Decree Holders have not taken any steps to proceed with the Execution Applications. The Execution Applications are thus dismissed in terms of Rule 329 as above.

¶37

(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)

¶38

5 of 5

¶39

LGC

Edelweiss Retail Finance Limited v. Aashiq Steel Industries through Proprietor Aashiq Aabas Yasinali Mookhy and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Edelweiss Retail Finance Limited v. Aashiq Steel Industries through Proprietor Aashiq Aabas Yasinali Mookhy 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

Dinesh Karsan Chheda and Anr. Vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Anr.

Asian Paints Ltd. vs Subodh Jain

Nishika Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through the Deputy Genergal Manager and Ors.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs Ganesh Pansare

Richad Mamod Riajhouseen Tahora vs Jitendra S Brahmbhatt

Aditya Birla Finance Limited vs Rnp Tradex LLP