Disposed

Vicky Dhirumal Karnani v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Sept 2024WP/2272/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging cancellation by the Senior Citizens Tribunal of a gift deed executed by respondent no.3 in favour of petitioner no.1. Parties present in court tendered consent terms, which were taken on record and made the basis of an order setting aside the tribunal's order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Tribunal order set aside; parties' inter se rights to be governed by Consent Terms dated 23 October 2024.

Vicky Dhirumal Karnani vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2-ASWP-2272-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2272 OF 2024

¶4

Vicky Dhirumal Karnani & Anr …Petitioners Versus

¶5

State of Maharashtra & Ors …Respondents

¶6

Mr. G.L. Bajaj, a/w Raunak Bajaj, Advait Dalvi & Shreya Gosavi, for the Petitioners.

¶7

Mr. K.B. Dighe, Addl.GP, a/w Savina R. Crasto, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶8

Mr. Vicky Karnani- Petitioner No.1, Pooja Vicky KarnaniPetitioner No.2, Dhirumal Karnani – Respondent No.3 and Hasso Karnani- Respondent No.4, are present in Court.

¶9

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 23, 2024

¶10

PC :

¶11

The above Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash and set aside

¶12

Digitally signed by ASHWINI ASHWINI JANARDAN JANARDAN VALLAKATI VALLAKATI Date: 2024.10.25 12:00:57 +0530

¶13

the order dated 23^rd November, 2023 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer acting as a Chairman of the Senior Citizens Tribunal, Powai Chowk, Ullhasnagar 421003. Basically, by the impugned order the Gift Deed executed by Respondent No.3 in favour of Petitioner No.1 was cancelled. When the above Writ Petition is called out, the parties have

¶14

Page 1 of 3 October 23, 2024

¶15

Ashwini Vallakati

¶16

2-ASWP-2272-2024.doc

¶17

tendered Consent Terms dated 23^rd October, 2024. The parties have stated that the impugned order be now substituted with these Consent Terms. The Consent Terms are signed by Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2 as well as Respondent No.3 and 4, who are really the contesting Respondents. Petitioner No.1 is the son of Respondent No.3 and Petitioner No.2 is the daughter-in-law. Respondent No.4 is the other son of Respondent No.3. All the parties, namely, the Petitioners as well as Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are present before the Court today. They have all stated before the Court that the Consent Terms have been signed by them after reading and understanding the same as well as the implications thereof.

¶18

In these circumstances, the Consent Terms dated 23^rd October, 2024 are taken on record and marked as ‘X’ for identification. There shall be an order in terms of the Consent Terms. In view of these Consent Terms the impugned order is set aside and the rights of the parties interse between them shall now be governed as per the terms of the Consent Terms.

¶19

The Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

Page 2 of 3 October 23, 2024

¶21

Ashwini Vallakati

¶22

2-ASWP-2272-2024.doc

¶23

This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/

¶24

Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶25

[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]

¶26

[ B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶27

Page 3 of 3

¶28

October 23, 2024

¶29

Ashwini Vallakati

Vicky Dhirumal Karnani v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vicky Dhirumal Karnani v. State of Maharashtra

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

Asha Prakash Liman vs Union of India through Its Secretary and Anr.

Bhavesh Santosh Bhoir and Ors. vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.

State of Maharashtra Thr. Land Acquisition Officer No. 1 vs Santosh Goel

Digvijay Rohit Dangare vs Union of India (the Ministry of Human Resource Development ) and Anr.

Pravin Jayhind Panhalkar vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Ashok Commercial Enterprises vs Deputy Registrar Co. Perative Societies a Ward