Disposed¶43

Seema Anshul Garg v. Anuj Umesh Goel

Bombay HC4 Feb 2025CP/265/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Consent Terms disposal; Bombay High Court; Kamal Khata J.; dated 01-10-2025; Appeal from Order No.711 of 2023; Contempt Petition No.265 of 2024; Seema Anshul Garg v. Anuj/Annuj Umesh Goel; settlement between parties; undertakings accepted; deletion of non-signatory Respondent No.4 (purchaser of property); consent terms taken on record and marked 'X'.

What did the court decide?

Both matters disposed of pursuant to Consent Terms executed between the parties; undertakings accepted; leave granted to delete Respondent No.4 (non-signatory purchaser of the property) from the cause title. ¶43

Seema Anshul Garg vs Anuj Umesh Goel — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

904-cp-265-2024+.doc

¶2

`Sumedh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.265 OF 2024 IN

¶5

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.711 OF 2023

¶6

Seema Anshul Garg ... Petitioner V/s. Anuj Umesh Goel & Anr. ... Respondents

¶7

WITH

¶8

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.711 OF 2023

¶9

Seema Anshul Garg ... Appellant V/s. Annuj Umesh Goel & Ors. ... Respondents

¶10

Mr. Anil Anturkar, Senior Counsel a/w. Adv. Harshvardhan Suryavanshi i/by Adv. Tanaji Mhatugade (appearing online) for the Petitioner/Appellant.

¶11

Mr. Jaydeep Deo for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶12

Mr. Ajinkya Udane for Respondent No.3.

¶13

Mr. Pralhad Paranjape i/by Adv. Manish Kelkar for Respondent No.4.

¶14

CORAM : KAMAL KHATA, J.

¶15

DATED : 1ST OCTOBER 2025.

¶16

P.C. :

¶17

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.711 OF 2023

¶18

1. Learned Advocate for the Appellant submits that the

¶19

Advocate on record is unavailable today and therefore unable to sign the Consent Terms. However, he submits that all the parties

¶20

1/4

¶21

Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH NAMDEO NAMDEO SONAWANE SONAWANE Date: 2025.10.06 09:30:48 +0530

¶22

904-cp-265-2024+.doc

¶23

are present and Consent Terms have been duly executed and signed by them. He accordingly requests that the Consent Terms be taken on record.

¶24

The Consent Terms tendered are accordingly taken on record and marked 'X' for identification with today's date.

¶25

The parties present have identified themselves and their signatures before the Court Associate. They confirm that they have voluntarily executed the Consent Terms of their own volition, without coercion or undue influence, and that the terms reflect their true intentions.

¶26

The Advocates have identified their respective clients having signed the Consent Terms against their names and signatures.

¶27

Having perused the Consent Terms, I find them to be in order, not contrary to law, and reflective of the true intentions of the parties.

¶28

The Registry shall ensure that the original signed Consent Terms are preserved permanently and not sent for destruction in ordinary course.

¶29

Undertaking contained in the Consent Terms, if any, are accepted as undertaking to this Court.

¶30

The learned Advocate for Respondent No.4 submits that the

¶31

2/4

¶32

904-cp-265-2024+.doc

¶33

Respondent No. 4 has not signed the Consent Terms, as he is the purchaser of the property, and therefore the same are not binding him.

¶34

The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners seeks leave to delete the Respondent No.4 from the array of parties in the cause title. Leave is granted. The amendment is permitted to be carried out forthwith.

¶35

The learned Senior Counsel submits that his junior, who is unavailable today, has not been able to sign the Consent Terms. However, he undertakes that the same will be done within a period of one week from today. The Advocate on record for the Petitioner,

¶36

appearing online, confirms this undertaking. The undertaking is accepted.

¶37

The Registry to permit the Advocate to append his signature on the Consent terms within a week from uploading of this Order.

¶38

The Appeal from Order is disposed of in view of the Consent Terms.

¶39

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.265 OF 2024

¶40

In view of the settlement between the parties and Consent Terms being filed in Court, I find no impediment in dismissing the Contempt Petition.

¶41

3/4

¶42

904-cp-265-2024+.doc

¶43

The Contempt Petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶44

(KAMAL KHATA, J.)

¶45

4/4

Seema Anshul Garg v. Anuj Umesh Goel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seema Anshul Garg v. Anuj Umesh Goel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mr. Vivek Hanumant Mungekar vs Mrs. Kalpana Vivek Mungekar

Shreyas Purandar Hegde vs Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and Another

Zenobia R. Poonawla (Nee Ginwalla) and Another vs Dr. Rustom Farhad Ginwalla and Others

Kalpak Harishchandra Kubal vs Sushila Vitthal Joshi (Deceased)

Symbiosis Thr. Its Trustees Dr. Shantaram Balwant Majumdar and Others vs Ashwin Gowardhandas Jasapara and Others

Yogiraj Ramchandra Tulaskar vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Government Pleader and Others