Allowed

1. Anaya Residences v. 1.SUBHENDU Kumar Barik

Bombay HC7 May 2024SA/211/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal challenging an order directing the issuance of an arrest warrant in execution proceedings. The Court accepted the appellants' undertaking to pay the balance amount, set aside the order for issuing the warrant, and allowed the respondents liberty to press execution proceedings in case of default.

What did the court decide?

Order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 05-02-2024 directing issuance of arrest warrant is set aside; Appellants accepted to pay balance under undertaking; interim application disposed of.

1. Anaya Residences Vs 1.SUBHENDU Kumar Barik — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

907_sa_211_2024.docx

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

SECOND APPEAL NO.211 OF 2024
WITH

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7499 OF 2024

¶5

IN

¶6

SECOND APPEAL NO.211 OF 2024

¶7

Anaya Residencies and Ors....Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Subhendu Kumar Barik and Anr.

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

Mr. Dileep Satale for the Appellants.
Ms Nidhi Singh with Mr. Ishan Gambhir with Ms Akshata Parkar i/b.
M/s. Indian Law LLP for Respondent No.1.

¶12

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
 DATED : 7 MAY 2024.

¶13

PC:

¶14

1.This appeal is filed challenging order dated 5 February
2024 passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal,
Mumbai in execution proceedings under which the registry of the
Tribunal is directed to issue warrant agains the Appellants.

¶15

Digitally signed byMEGHA MEGHA SHREEDHAR SHREEDHAR PARAB PARAB Date: 2024.05.08 11:15:46 +0530

¶16

2.Mr. Satale, the learned counsel appearing for the
Appellants would submit that the Appellants are willing to pay the
entire decreetal amount to the Respondents. The learned cousnel
appearing for Respondent No.1 would submit that the total amount
due to the Respondents as of today is Rs.22,46,049.23.

Megha

1/3

907_sa_211_2024.docx

3.The Appellants have handed over a Demand Draft of
Rs.5,00,000/- to the learned counsel for Respondent No.1. Mr.
Satale, after taking instructions from Rohit Chugani, Appellant No.2,
who is personally present before the Court would submit that the
balance amount of Rs.17,46,049.23 shall be paid to the Respondents
within a period of two months from today. The statement made is
accepted as an undertaking to the Court.

¶21

4.In view of readiness expressed by the Appellants to pay
the entire decreetal amount to the Respondents, in my view it is not
necessary at this juncture to execute the arrest warrant issued by the
Appellate Tribunal. In that view of the matter order dated 5
February 2024 passed by the Appellate Tribunal is set aside.
However, it is made clear that in the event Appellants make a default
in payment of balance amount of Rs.17,46,049.23, the Respodents
will be at liberty to press the execution proceedings before the
Appellate Tribunal.

¶22

5. With the above directions, the appeal is disposed of.

¶23

6.In view of disposal of the Second Appeal, the interim
application does not survive and hence stands dispsoed of.

Megha

2/3

907_sa_211_2024.docx

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

¶28

Megha

¶29

3/3

1. Anaya Residences v. 1.SUBHENDU Kumar Barik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

1. Anaya Residences v. 1.SUBHENDU Kumar Barik

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

Leopold Cafe Kamgar Sanghatana vs Leopold Cafe and Stores

Sadashiv Balshiram Neharkar Vs Hanumant Baburao Neharkar and Ors.

Smt. Suvarna Ishwarappa Jamma Vs Smt. Mahadevi Mallikarjun Bagelli

Somaiya Vidyavihar Somaiya Bhavan vs Shekhar Deshmukh

Santosh Prakash Tulsiani vs Shree Satidham Co. Operative Housing Society Ltd.

Shankar Hiranna Sunke vs State of Maharashtra