Dismissed

Edelweiss Retail Finance Limited v. Chaitanya Chemical Corpration and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Apr 2024EXA/873/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court dismissed multiple execution applications filed in 2017-2019 under Rule 329 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980, due to a twelve-month period of inaction by the decree holders, resulting in a dismissal for want of prosecution despite the passage of over five years.

What did the court decide?

Execution applications dismissed for non-prosecution pursuant to the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980.

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

¶1

Digitally signed byMUGDHA MUGDHA MANOJ MANOJ PARANJAPE PARANJAPE Date: 2024.04.16 16:51:18 +0530

¶2

1 3-EXA 510-17 & other matters.doc

¶3

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

¶4

EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.510 OF 2017

¶5

Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. … Applicant (Org. Claimant/Decree Holder) V/s.

¶6

Renu Ravinderkumar Alagh & Anr. … Respondents

¶7

(Org. Respondents/Judgment Debtors)

¶8

AND EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.511 OF 2017

¶9

AND EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.512 OF 2017 AND EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.516 OF 2017 AND EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.527 OF 2017

¶10

AND EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.951 OF 2017

¶11

AND EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.952 OF 2017

¶12

AND EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.953 OF 2017

¶13

AND

¶14

EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.961 OF 2017

¶15

AND

¶16

EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.1162 OF 2017

¶17

Mugdha

¶18

1 of 4

¶19

2 3-EXA 510-17 & other matters.doc

¶20

AND EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.333 OF 2018 AND EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.334 OF 2018 AND EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.335 OF 2018 AND EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.336 OF 2018 AND EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.338 OF 2018 AND EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.244 OF 2019 AND EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.246 OF 2019 AND EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.283 OF 2019 AND EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.297 OF 2019 AND EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.304 OF 2019 AND EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.873 OF 2019
AND EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.976 OF 2019 AND EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.1052 OF 2019 AND
COMMERCIAL EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.1075 OF 2019
AND EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.1135 OF 2019

¶21

Mugdha

¶22

2 of 4

¶23

3 3-EXA 510-17 & other matters.doc

¶24

AND

¶25

EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.1269 OF 2019

¶26

None for the Claimants/Decree Holders.

¶27

CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. DATE : 16TH APRIL 2024

¶28

P.C.:-

¶29

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 Claimants/Decree Holders for twelve months from the date of filing of the captioned Execution Applications. Rule 329 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 provides as follows;

¶30

“ 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.”

¶31

Today when these matters were called out, none appeared on behalf of the Claimants/Decree Holders to show cause as to why the captioned Execution Applications should not be dismissed. The captioned Execution

¶32

Mugdha

¶33

3 of 4

¶34

4 3-EXA 510-17 & other matters.doc

¶35

Applications are of the years 2017, 2018 and 2019 and given that despite the passage of over five years, the Claimants/Decree Holders have not taken any steps to proceed with the Execution Applications, the captioned Execution Applications are thus dismissed in terms of Rule 329 as above.

¶36

(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)

¶37

Mugdha

¶38

4 of 4

Edelweiss Retail Finance Limited v. Chaitanya Chemical Corpration and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Edelweiss Retail Finance Limited v. Chaitanya Chemical Corpration 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

Gitadevi Ramprakash Podar Vs Pragnesh Narayan Podar and 2 Ors.

Association of Managements of Law Colleges Vs the Bar Council of India and 4 Ors.

The Institute of Business Studies and Research School of Law Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Valerie Marie Rodrigues and 3 Ors. Vs Vellie Mary Andrade and 4 Ors.

United Petro Finance Ltd. Vs Fine Support Services Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Sushma Sukumar Samanta Vs Jayabala Wd/O Ashok Suryakant Zaveri Lh of Ashok Suryakant (Since Deceased) and 2 Ors.