Allowed

Anthony J. E. Pinto v. Zahra Developers and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC2 Sept 2024JO/115/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court permitted execution to issue before the sealing of a consent decree under Rule 314 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, dispensing with formal sealing to prevent further delay to judgment creditors who had been displaced since 2010. The judge's orders were signed, and objections were directed to be removed within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Execution of consent decree permitted before sealing; objections to be removed within two weeks.

Anthony J. E. Pinto vs Zahra Developers and 2 Ors. — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

12 to 17-corrected.doc

¶2

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

¶3

JUDGE’S ORDER NO. 112 OF 2024 IN

¶4

EXECUTION APPLICATION (L) NO. 33725 OF 2022

Sunanda R. Shetty

...Applicant

V/s.

Zahra Developers and Ors.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

WITH JUDGE’S ORDER NO. 113 OF 2024

¶11

¶12

EXECUTION APPLICATION (L) NO. 33745 OF 2022 WITH JUDGE’S ORDER NO. 114 OF 2024 IN

¶13

EXECUTION APPLICATION (L) NO. 33752 OF 2022

¶14

WITH JUDGE’S ORDER NO. 115 OF 2024

¶15

¶16

EXECUTION APPLICATION (L) NO. 33700 OF 2022

¶17

WITH JUDGE’S ORDER NO. 116 OF 2024

¶18

¶19

EXECUTION APPLICATION (L) NO. 33689 OF 2022

¶20

WITH

¶21

JUDGE’S ORDER (L) NO. 25275 OF 2024 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION (L) NO. 33730 OF 2022

¶22

Ms. Fatema Tankiwala i/b LJ Law for Applicants in all Judge’s Order.

¶23

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 26^th SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶24

P.C. :

¶25

1. Pursuant to the earlier order of this Court, today when the

¶26

matters are called out, Ms. Tankiwala, learned Counsel appears for the

¶27

This order is corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 1^st October, 2024. Nikita Gadgil 1/3

¶28

12 to 17-corrected.doc

¶29

Judgment Creditors / Original Plaintiffs and submits that as directed by this Court, the Judge’s Orders along with supporting affidavits have been served and seeks to tender across the bar a copy of the affidavit of service dated 12^th September, 2024, submitting that the packets have been delivered and that the original of the affidavit of service has already been filed online.

¶30

Ms. Tankiwala submits that, therefore, for reasons stated in paragraphs No. 4, 5 and 6 of the affidavits in support of the Judge’s Orders, this Court may proceed to sign the Judge’s Orders, dispensing the drawing up of the consent decree and sealing thereof under Rule 314 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules.

¶31

Under Rule 314 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules,

¶32

the Court or the Judge in Chambers may for good cause, allow execution to issue before the sealing of decree or order.

¶33

It is observed from the affidavits in support in the above Judge’s Orders that the Claimants/Judgment Creditors are tenants, who have pursuant to consent decree became entitled to the performance by the Judgment Debtors of their obligation in terms of the consent decree.

¶34

This order is corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 1^st October, 2024. Nikita Gadgil 2/3

¶35

12 to 17-corrected.doc

¶36

That the Claimants/ Judgment Creditors have been out of their homes since December, 2010 and have also not received their compensation for temporary accommodation. Therefore, in order not to further delay the entitlement of the Judgment Creditors of their fruits of the consent decree, this Court is of the view that the sealing of the consent decree be dispensed with and the execution of the consent decree to proceed.

¶37

Accordingly the Judge’s Orders are separately signed.

¶38

Let the objections to the Execution Applications be removed within a period of two weeks.

¶39

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

¶40

NIKITA YOGESH GADGIL

¶41

Digitally signed by NIKITA YOGESH GADGIL Date: 2024.10.01 18:58:19 +0530

¶42

This order is corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 1^st October, 2024. Nikita Gadgil 3/3

Anthony J. E. Pinto v. Zahra Developers and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anthony J. E. Pinto v. Zahra Developers and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Idbi Trusteeship Services Limited vs Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Official Liquidator of Patheja Brothers Forgings and Stamping Ltd. (in Liquidation) vs Devi Construction Co.Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner)

Official Liquidator of Elder Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (in Liquidation) vs Puspasen C. Jhaveri. (Petitioner)

Gurdev Singh Sehra and 2 Others vs Parthesh K. L. Developers and Another

Samir Narain Bhojwani vs Abhishek S.Jhaveri and 2 Ors. (Plaintiff) and Zodiac Developers (P) Ltd.

Rossi M. D Souza vs Zahra Developers and 2 Ors.