Darius Burjor Shroff vs Jaideep Singh Grewal — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Darius Burjor Shroff vs Jaideep Singh Grewal — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Misc petition/suit disposed of in terms of the consent terms between the petitioner and respondent No.1; orders dated 16th February 2024 and 16th August 2024 set aside; respondent nos. 2 and 3 treated as deleted with liberty to adopt proper proceedings against them; counsel for respondent No.1 to file vakalatnama; refund of court fees, if any, as per Rule; soft copy of the consent terms to be uploaded as the second order and the signed hard copy permanently retained on file.

Issue for consideration

Whether the disputes and differences in the misc petition stand resolved such that the suit may be disposed of in terms of the consent terms executed between the petitioner and respondent No.1.

Court's answer

The consent terms executed between the petitioner and respondent No.1 are taken on record and marked 'X' for identification.

Ratio / Principle

Accepting the learned counsel's assurance that the consent terms do not travel beyond the scope of the suit and do not affect the rights of any non-party, the suit stands disposed of in terms of the consent terms.

Key takeaways

In view of the consent terms, the orders dated 16th February 2024 and 16th August 2024 are set aside.ratio¶26
The names of respondent nos. 2 and 3 are treated as deleted from the misc petition, with liberty to adopt proper proceedings against them.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction (Arif S. Doctor, J.), 7th April 2025 — Interim Application (L) No. 606 of 2025 in Misc Petition No. 507 of 2024: Consent terms executed between petitioner Darius Burjor Shroff and respondent No.1 Jaideep Singh Grewal, supported by the Associate's report dated 7th April 2025, were taken on record and marked 'X' for identification, and the suit stood disposed of in terms of the consent terms, the Court accepting counsel's assurance that the terms did not travel beyond the scope of the suit nor affect the rights of any non-party. The orders dated 16th February 2024 and 16th August 2024 were set aside. The names of respondent nos. 2 and 3 were treated as deleted from the misc petition with liberty to adopt proper proceedings against them. Counsel for respondent No.1 undertook to file a vakalatnama. Refund of court fees, if any, as per Rule; the Registry was directed to permanently retain the signed consent terms on file and not send them for destruction.

Digitally signed by MEERA MEERA MAHESH MAHESH JADHAV JADHAV Date:2025.04.09 11:38:41 +0530

9-ial-606-25.doc

1 / 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.606 OF 2025

IN

MISC PETITION NO.507 OF 2024

Darius Burjor Shroff

...Applicant/Petitioner

Versus

Jaideep Singh Grewal & Ors ...Respondents

Mr. Fredun Devitre, Senior advocate a/w Mr. Rahul P. Jain for Petitioner. Ms Chitra Rentala a/w Ms Sonal Singh i/b Trilegal for Respondent No.1. Ms Prapti Bhadra i/b M/s Jhangiani, Narula & Associates for Respondent No.2.

CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. DATED : 7th APRIL 2025

P.C. :

1 The consent terms are entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.1 by which the disputes and differences in the caption misc petition have been amicably resolved in terms of the consent terms. The execution of the consent terms is supported by the report dated 7th April 2025 of the Associate of this court. The report inter alia records as follows:

“All the Signatories have admitted the contents of the consent terms. The consent term are duly signed by the parties out of their free will without any undue influence and coercion. The consent term are duly executed by the signatories.”

2 In so far as respondent nos.2 and 3 are concerned, the names of respondent nos.2 and 3 are treated as deleted from the misc petition with liberty

Meera Jadhav

9-ial-606-25.doc

2 / 2

to adopt proper proceedings against respondent nos.2 and 3.

3 Learned Counsel Ms. Rentala undertakes to file vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.1.

4 The consent terms are taken on record and marked “X” for identification. Both the learned counsel confirm that the consent terms do not touch upon any issue which travels beyond the scope of the suit neither do they affect or afford to affect right of any parties who is not party to the suit. Accepting the assurance of the learned counsel, the suit stands disposed of in terms of the consent terms.

5 Refund of court fees, if any, shall be as per Rule.

6 In view of the consent terms, the orders dated 16 th February 2024 and 16th August 2024 are hereby set aside.

7 Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order.

8 A soft copy of the Consent Terms will be uploaded as the second order in the matter. The Registry is to ensure that the hard copy of the signed Consent Terms is permanently retained on file as part of the record and is not sent for destruction in the ordinary course.

(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)

Meera Jadhav