In an interim application seeking discharge of a caveat filed by one of the respondents, the learned Single Judge held that delay in filing was already condoned in a prior application, rendering the present application for discharge non-meritorious.
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.
32-IA580-2024INCTS12-2024.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION
SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI
Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2024.07.10 14:15:47 +0530
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 580 OF 2024
IN
CAVEAT NO. 12 OF 2024 IN
PETITION NO. 2683 OF 2021
Manoj Himatlal Mehta
...Applicant
Versus
Yogesh Himatlal Mehta & Anr. …Respondents
Mr. Prabhu Velar, for the Applicant. Mr. Yogesh Himatlal Mehta, Respondent-in-person, present.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 8th JULY, 2024
PC:-
Yogesh Mehta, the Caveator – respondent appearing in person.
Mehta, another Caveator, had not at all filed an application
for condonation of delay. Therefore, the Caveat filed by the Caveatrix being Caveat (L) NO.15895 of 2022 be dismissed.
1/2
32-IA580-2024INCTS12-2024.DOC
Mr. Yogesh Mehta invites the attention of the Court to an order dated 19th January, 2024 in IA/809/2023 and submits that the delay in filing the Caveat has already been condoned.
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the application for discharge of caveat deserves consideration when the delay in filing has already been condoned by the court?
SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI
Yogesh Himatlal Mehta
Snehal Mehta
N. J. JAMADAR
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
