Allowed¶25

Rajendra Kumar B. Vyas v. Bharat Nana Joshi @ Vithoba Soma Chinderkar

Bombay HC17 Feb 2025CAA/2/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajendra Kumar B. Vyas (original defendant, CA applicant) permitted by Bombay HC (Gauri Godse, J.) to withdraw Rs. 2 lakh court deposit with accrued interest; deposit made by plaintiff per order dated 3 Sep 2012; suit decreed by City Civil Court during pendency of Appeal From Order No. 889 of 2012 (opposite party: Bharat Nana Joshi, appellant); appeal disposed as infructuous; decree directions not under challenge.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to the applicant, Rajendra Kumar B. Vyas (original defendant/respondent in the Appeal From Order), to withdraw the sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs deposited in this Court together with accrued interest. ¶25

Rajendra Kumar B. Vyas vs Bharat Nana Joshi @ Vithoba Soma Chinderkar — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

510.2.25 caa.docx

¶2

Iresh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2 OF 2025 IN

¶6

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 889 OF 2012

¶7

Rajendra Kumar B. Vyas IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

¶8

.....Applicant

¶9

Bharat Nana Joshi ….Appellant

¶10

Vs.

¶11

Rajendra Kumar B. Vyas .....Respondent

¶12

IRESH MASHAL

¶13

Digitally signed by IRESH MASHAL Date: 2025.06.27 13:29:25 +0530

¶14

Ms. Bhakti Patil i/b Mr. Prabhu Velar for the applicant Mr. Abhishek Deshmukh a/w Ms. Bhakti Wast i/b Mr. Sanjiv Sawant for the respondent

¶15

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

¶16

DATE : 26^th JUNE 2025

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

Not on board. Taken on production board.

¶19

This application is filed by the original defendant-respondent

¶20

in Appeal From Order for liberty to withdraw the amount deposited in this Court during the pendency of the appeal. Learned counsel

¶21

for the applicant submits that the appeal was disposed of as

¶22

1/2

¶23

510.2.25 caa.docx

¶24

infructuous as the suit was decreed during the pendency of the appeal. She submits that while decreeing the suit, learned City Civil Court has permitted the defendant/applicant to withdraw the amount deposited in this Court. The amount was deposited in this Court by the plaintiff pursuant to order dated 3^rd September 2012 and the amount was permitted to be invested. In view of the directions issued at the time of decreeing the suit, the defendant has filed this application for permission to withdraw the amount. The directions issued by the City Civil Court while decreeing the suit is not under challenge. Hence, I see no reason to refuse the prayers in the application.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid, application is allowed and the applicant i.e. Rajendra Kumar B. Vyas (Original defendant/respondent in the Appeal From Order) is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs with accrued interest.

¶26

Application is allowed in aforesaid terms.

¶27

[GAURI GODSE, J.]

¶28

2/2

Rajendra Kumar B. Vyas v. Bharat Nana Joshi @ Vithoba Soma Chinderkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar B. Vyas v. Bharat Nana Joshi @ Vithoba Soma Chinderkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shri. Ravindra Genba Hargude vs Shri. Kailas Dhondu Burde ( Deceased) Thr Lrs. and Ors.

Shri. Ravindra Genba Hargude vs Shri. Kailas Dhondu Burde ( Deceased) Thr Lrs. and Ors.

Rohan Construction Thr. Prop. Mr.Bhibhishan Venkatrao Gaikwad and Other vs Smt. Krishnabai Pandit Bhondve and Others

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Mr. Tanaji Maruti Sakhare and Anr.

Narsing Yallappa Mhetre and Ors. vs B.G. Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Narsing Yallappa Mhetre and Ors. vs B.G. Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.