Allowed

Uttam Shankar Apule v. Sharad U. Apule and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Mar 2024MCA/497/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought clarification that an earlier direction requiring respondent to remove himself from premises also covers removal of his belongings, as respondent continued visiting and harassing. The Court allowed the application, clarifying that the removal direction includes removal of all belongings.

What did the court decide?

Direction clarified: respondent must remove all his belongings from the premises along with himself; no order as to costs.

Uttam Shankar Apule Vs Sharad U. Apule and Anr. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

MCA.497 OF 2023.ODT

¶2

Shakuntala

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 497 OF 2023 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2073 OF 2022 (F)

¶6

UTTAM SHANKAR APULE ... APPLICANT Versus SHARAD U. APULE AND ANR ... RESPONDENTS

¶7

Mr. Sarvesh Sawant, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶8

AVINASH. G. GHAROTE, J. CORAM: DATED: 22^nd MARCH 2024

¶9

P.C.

¶10

1. Though the Respondent No. 2 is claimed to have removed

¶11

himself from the premises in question, however, it is contended that he has kept his belongings in the premises and continues to visit the

¶12

premises on that count and continues to harass the Applicant.

¶13

2. The Respondent no. 2 inspite of the service has chosen not

¶14

to appear.

¶15

3. A modi�cation is sought to the e ect that the direction for

¶16

removal of the Respondent no. 2 should also be construed as a direction to remove all his belongings too, otherwise, the direction

¶17

Page 1 of 3 22^nd March 2024

¶18

MCA.497 OF 2023.ODT

¶19

would become ine ective.

¶20

4. It is also contended that though a complaint has been made to

¶21

the authorities, in the absence of a speci�c direction in this regard, the Judgment dated 06.10.2022 assistance is being declined.

¶22

5. The Judgment dated 06.10.2022 in paragraph Nos. 22 and 23 while directing Respondent No.2 to remove himself has given the following directions:-

¶23

22. It needs to be clari�ed and as stated by Mr. Lotlikar Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, that the dispute with the petitioner no.1 stands settled and the order passed by the tribunal would become applicable on in so far as petitioner no.2 is concerned. Petitioner no.2 is accordingly directed to remove himself from the premises within a period of two weeks from the day of a copy of this order is made available.

¶24

23. However, during such period, petitioner no. 2 shall not create any mental or physical harassment to the

¶25

respondent or his wife-mother. Any such instance shall be viewed seriously, if it is brought to the notice of the

¶26

Page 2 of 3 22^nd March 2024

¶27

MCA.497 OF 2023.ODT

¶28

appropriate forum, including this Court.

¶29

6. A perusal of the above would indicate that the aforesaid direction for removal of Petitioner No.2 from the premises in question would include in itself, a direction to remove all his belongings too, otherwise, the direction would become redundant.

¶30

7. The application is, therefore, allowed and it is clari�ed that the direction as contained in paragraph No. 22 of the Judgment dated 06.10.2022 includes a direction for the Respondent No.2 to remove all his belongings from the premises in question also. Application is accordingly allowed in the above terms, with no order as to costs.

¶31

AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

¶32

Page 3 of 3 22^nd March 2024

Uttam Shankar Apule v. Sharad U. Apule and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttam Shankar Apule v. Sharad U. Apule and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivnagar Vidya Prasarak Mandal Thr Its Chairman and Anr. vs Vikrant Bhausa Pawar and Anr.

The Jeejamata Multipurpose Urban Co-Op. Society Ltd., Rep. by Its Manager, Dayanand C. Chari., Vs Sunil S. Naik and Anr.

Paresh v. Joshi and 4 Ors. Vs Y. v. Pawar

Dattatraya Y. Sadekar Vs Vinay Yeshwant Sadekar and Anr.

B.S.Enterprises (Lottery Div.) Unit of Goldwin Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Thr.Auth. Parvinder Singh Bajwa Vs Government of Goa Thr. Principal Secretary (Finance) Finance Department

Blooming Mining Private Limited vs Real Gem Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.