Imtiaz Sharafali Furniturewalla vs Adamji Mahomedally

When the matter was called out at 1:19 p.m., Mr. Pardiwalla, on instructions from respondent no. 2, who is present in the Court, submitted that his client would comply with the order dated 27 November 2025 today, within two hours.

¶13

Mr. Seth, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that when the keys are handed over today, Mr. Pardiwalla should ensure that the keys of the front door as well as the internal rooms of the premises are also handed over.

¶14

Mr. Pardiwalla responded by stating that the premises is a godown and that there cannot be any rooms in a godown. He further submitted that the keys of the main door would be handed over.

¶15

1. The matter is to be called out again at 4:00 p.m.

¶16

1. This matter is now called out at 4.29 p.m.

¶17

Mr. Pardiwalla, learned counsel who is present along with respondent no.2 has handed over two keys to Mr. Seth who has accepted keys on behalf of his client – applicant.

¶18

1

¶19

Diksha Rane 904 IA 47212025.doc

¶20

Mr. Seth submits that, as per the instructions received from his client, there is an issue as to whether there exists any room inside the suit premises which is locked and whose keys have not been handed over. He seeks some time to physically verify whether any such room exists and, if so, whether it is locked and the keys thereof are not available with his client.

¶21

In order to permit the applicant to verify whether any room is situated inside the subject premises and whether it is locked ?, stand over to 7 January 2026 .

¶22

2) Admittedly, the keys of the main door of subject premises has been handed over to the applicant’s advocate. However, it is case of learned counsel appearing for the applicant that after opening the door of the subject premises, it was found that there is “fire exit door” which has been locked. So also, there is a shutter on the ground floor, which is locked and its keys are not available. Applicant’s advocate had produced photographs to that effect and had handed over copies of photographs to respondent no.2, who was present in Court.

¶23

3) Yesterday, when this matter was called out, the respondent no.2 submitted that the shutter has not been opened for a long time, therefore, it will be very difficult to open the said door, and as far as the fire exit door is concerned, he was not able to give any kind of answer whether the keys of the fire exit door will be handed over to the applicant.

¶24

4) Today, Mr. Pardiwalla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.2 and 3, on instructions submits that the keys of the

¶25

2

¶26

Diksha Rane 904 IA 47212025.doc

¶27

shutter and of the fire exit door are not available.

¶28

5) In view of the statements made on behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3, the applicant is permitted to break open the lock of the shutter and the fire exit door and fix a new lock on both the doors and hand over one set of the keys to the advocate for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

¶29

6) Since there is issue raised by the applicant as regards the belongings of the respondent nos.2 and 3 lying in the subject premises, the applicant or his authorized representative with the authority letter and the other side are directed to remain present in the suit premises on 14/1/2026, at 11.00 a.m., and the list of the inventory be prepared of the goods lying in the subject premises along with photographs of the whole process being conducted. The said list and photographs be tendered in the Court on the next date of the hearing.

¶30

7) Stand over to 19/1/2026 . To be listed under the caption “For Compliance” .

¶31

(Rajesh S. Patil, J.)

¶32

3

¶33

Signed by: Diksha Rane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 08/01/2026 20:06:47

Imtiaz Sharafali Furniturewalla v. Adamji Mahomedally

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imtiaz Sharafali Furniturewalla v. Adamji Mahomedally

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

Tejas Dattatray Takalkar vs the State of Maharashtra

Viimal Vishnu Yadav vs Rohini Sudhakar Gaikwad

Smt. Avice Misquitta Since Decd Widow of Melville Misquitta Throu. L.H vs Smt. Christabelle Dsilva Since Decd Thro. L. and Ors.

Arbaaz Khan Productions Pvt. Ltd. vs Kinesis Films Private Limited

Vaishnavi Prasad Dhanorkar vs Prasad Ramesh Dhanorkar

Rekha Sachin Gaikwad Alias Rekha Ravindra Salve, vs Sachin Sahebrao Gaikwad