GST Course
CA Final Online Classes
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

It is easy to obtain a decree than to get it executed, says Bombay HC

LinkedIn


Court :
Bombay High Court

Brief :
This is a case, where the obstructionist (who according to the decree holder is a sub-lessee/dealer of the original defendant) is obstructing the execution of the decree, for eviction, although the original lessee is willing to surrender possession, and at the same time is also resisting the claim for compensation/occupation charges, although being in possession of the suit property, which is commercial in nature.

Citation :
WRIT PETITION NO. 2398 OF 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 2398 OF 2020

1. Kumari Asha Parekh
Aged about 77 years,
Occ. Artist, R/at. Iona,
7th Floor, Juhu Koliwada,
Mumbai – 400 049.

2. Dr. Mugatlal Bhagwandas Shah
Age 89 years, Occ. Doctor,
Rajni Villa, Jame Jamshed Road,
Matunga, Mumbai – 400 019.

3. Dr. Suketu Manohar Shah
Age 66 years, Occ. Doctor,
Indian Inhabitant, R/at.
16/C, Laxmi Estate, Old
Nagardas Road, Andheri (E),
Mumbai – 400 069. ...Petitioners

Vs.

1. M/s. Madhav Motors Stores Pvt. Ltd.
A Company registered under provisions
of Companies Act, 1956 and having its
Registered Office at 11, S. V. Road,
Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 058.

2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
A Company registered under the Companies
Act, 1956, having its registered office at
Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6, Currimbhoy Road,
Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 038.

3. Mr. Ashish Vinodkumar Aggarwal
Age 43 years, Occ. Business,
Nos.1 to 3 R/at. Aggarwal House,
49-A, Presidency Co. Op. Housing Society,
JVPD Scheme Road No.7,
Mumbai – 400 049. ...Respondents

WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 430 OF 2018

M/s. Madhav Motor Stores Pvt. Ltd.
A Company registered under provisions
of Companies Act, 1956 and having its
Registered office at 11, S. V. Road,
Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 058 and
at S. V. Road, Santacruz (West)
Mumbai – 400 054. ..Applicant

 V/s.

1. Dr. Mugatlal Bhagwandas Shah,
Adult, Practicing Doctor of Mumbai,
Indian Inhabitant, R/at. Rajni Villa,
Jam-e-Jamshed Road, Matunga,
Mumbai – 400 019.

2. Dr. Jayesh Nagardas Doctor,
Adult, Practicing Doctor of Mumbai,
Indian Inhabitant, R/at. Chitrakunj
18, New India Co. Op. Hsg. Society,
JVPD Scheme, Mumbai – 400 056.

3. Mr. Chandrakant Chhaganlal Tambawala
(Since deceased), substituted by
Shri Sudhin C. Mazumdar,
Adult, Hansrajwadi, Tagore Road,
Santacruz (West), Mumbai – 400 054.

4. Dr. Suketu Manohar Shah
Adult, Occ. Doctor,
Indian Inhabitant, R/at. 16/C,
Laxmi Estate, Old Nagardas Road,
Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 069.

5. Mr. Navnitlal Chhaganlal Dalal,
(Since deceased), substituted by
Shri Navin I. Marafatia
Adult, A/7, Hari Preet,
St. Andrews Road, Santacruz (E),
Mumbai – 400 054.

6. Kumari Asha Parekh
Adult, Occ. Artist,
R/at Jone, 7th Floor, Juhu
Koliwada, Mumbai – 400 049.

7. Shri Vinodkumar Aggarwal,
Adult, Occ. Business,

8. Shri. P. K. Aggarwal,
Adult, Occ. Business,

9. Mr. Ashish Vinodkumar Aggarwal
Adult, Occ. Business,
No.7 to 9 R/at. Aggarwal House,
49-A, Presidency Co. Op. Housing Society,
JVPD Scheme Road No.7,
Mumbai – 400 049. ..Respondents
(Orig. plaintiffs)

10. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
A Company registered under the Companies
Act, 1956, having its registered office at
Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6, Currimbhoy Road,
Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 038. ...Respondent
(Orig. defendant)

Mr. S. C. Naidu a/w. Mr. Manoj Gujar, Aniketh Poojary, Sudeshkumar
Naidu i/b. C.R. Naidu & Co. for the Petitioners in WP No.2398 of
2020 and for the Respondent Nos.1,4 and 6 in CRA No.430 of 2018.
Mr. Ranjit Thorat, Senior Advocate for the Respondent No.1 in WP
No.2398 of 2020 and for the Applicant in CRA No.430 of 2018.
Mr. S. R. Page for the Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.2398 of
2020 and for the Respondent No.10 in CRA No.430 of 2018.

CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.
RESERVED ON : 10th MARCH 2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 4th MAY 2021:COMMON JUDGMENT:

This is yet another case which fortifies that it is easy to obtain a decree than to get it executed.

2. This is a case, where the obstructionist (who according to the decree holder is a sub-lessee/dealer of the original defendant) is obstructing the execution of the decree, for eviction, although the original lessee is willing to surrender possession, and at the same time is also resisting the claim for compensation/occupation charges, although being in possession of the suit property, which is commercial in nature.

3. The Writ Petition and the Civil Revision Application are between the same parties and have been directed to be heard together. This Court had also indicted that the matters will be taken up for final disposal. Accordingly, the parties are heard and the civil revision application and the writ petition are being disposed of finally by consent of parties. For the sake of convenience, the facts are narrated with reference to the Writ Petition.

To know more in details find the attachment file

 

Guest
on 04 June 2021
Published in LAW
Views : 9
Attached File : 2539488_3735_ordjud.pdf
downloaded 4 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags