Disposed¶24

Brass Touch and Ors. v. Mita Mukesh Shah

Bombay HC6 Mar 2024WP/2617/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC, Milind N. Jadhav J, 28-02-2024; Writ Petitions 2616 & 2617 of 2024 (tagged with WP 2612 of 2024); Brass Touch & Ors v Amit Shah / Mita Mukesh Shah; summons for judgment partly allowed — deposit of 50% of principal amount; reconciliation/instalment-offer attempt directed without prejudice; Court expressed nothing on merits; adjourned (stood over) to 6th March 2024 at joint request; no statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

The Court requested both parties to consider their respective cases and attempt a reconciliation, with the Petitioners to consider a reasonable offer of making payments over a period of time, expressly without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties; the Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed anything on merits. ¶23

Brass Touch and Ors. vs Mita Mukesh Shah — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

17-18. CIVIL WP-2616 & 2617-2024.docx

¶2

Amberkar

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2616 OF 2024

¶6

Brass Touch & Ors. .. Petitioners

¶7

Versus Amit Shah

¶8

.. Respondent

¶9

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2617 OF 2024

¶10

Brass Touch & Ors. .. Petitioners

Versus

Mita Mukesh Shah

.. Respondent

Ms. Pranjali Bhandari, Partner of Petition No. 1 present

¶15

Mr. Bhanu Chopra a/w Mr. Rishab Murali and Stuti Ladia i/by Dhruve Liladhar & Co for Respondents

¶16

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 28, 2024

¶17

P. C.:

¶18

Heard Mr. Chopra, learned Advocate for Respondents and the partners of Petitioner No. 1 before me. Mr. Chopra would inform that apart from these two Petitions, there is another Writ Petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 2612 of 2024 wherein an identical order has been passed against the Petitioners. All these three Petitions are directed to be tagged and listed together henceforth.

¶19

Summons for judgment has been partly allowed by directing the Petitioners to deposit 50% of the principal amount. Without delineating into the merits of the defence adopted by the Petitioners as

¶20

1 of 2

¶21

17-18. CIVIL WP-2616 & 2617-2024.docx

¶22

also the case of the Respondents, I have requested both the parties to consider their respective cases and attempt a reconciliation, if possible.

¶23

This would apply mere to the Petitioners to consider giving a reasonable offer of making payments over a period of time, if agreeable to the Respondents. Undoubtedly, this shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties. I clarify that I have not expressed anything on merits and I request the parties to make at least one attempt before the next date and apprise me if a resolution is possible or otherwise.

¶24