Omkar Vachapurty Co-op. Hsg v. Manish Dharnidhar Shah & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Remanded
The matter is remanded to
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. It is not necessary to consider various 2. It is not necessary to consider various 2. It is not necessary to consider various contentions as raised in the Petition or the findings contentions as raised in the Petition or the findings contentions as raised…
Judgment
Mr.A.K.Abhyankar Adv. with Mr. N.V.Mhatre Adv. for Mr.A.K.Abhyankar Adv. with Mr. N.V.Mhatre Adv. for Mr.A.K.Abhyankar Adv. with Mr. N.V.Mhatre Adv. for Petitioners Petitioners Petitioners Mr. Y.S.Jahagirdar, Sr. Adv. i/b. M/s. S.Pathak & Mr. Y.S.Jahagirdar, Sr. Adv. i/b. M/s. S.Pathak & Mr. Y.S.Jahagirdar, Sr. Adv. i/b. M/s. S.Pathak & Co. for Respondent No.1 Co. for Respondent No.1 Co. for Respondent No.1 Mrs. M.P. Thakur, A.G.P. for Respondents 2 to 4 Mrs. M.P. Thakur, A.G.P. for Respondents 2 to 4 Mrs. M.P. Thakur, A.G.P. for Respondents 2 to 4 CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. DATED: 13TH DECEMBER, 2005 DATED: 13TH DECEMBER, 2005 DATED: 13TH DECEMBER, 2005 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Rule. Heard forthwith. . Rule. Heard forthwith. . Rule. Heard forthwith.
Operative part
It is not necessary to consider various 2. It is not necessary to consider various 2. It is not necessary to consider various contentions as raised in the Petition or the findings contentions as raised in the Petition or the findings contentions as raised in the Petition or the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority. The fact remains recorded by the Appellate Authority. The fact remains recorded by the Appellate Authority. The fact remains that the Respondent no.1 is the owner of the property that the Respondent no.1 is the owner of the property that the Respondent no.1 is the owner of the property and he had no opportunity of contesting the and he had no opportunity of contesting the and he had no opportunity of contesting the proceedings before Respondent No.2. In the light of proceedings before Respondent No.2. In the light of proceedings before Respondent No.2. In the light of that the impugned order dated 24th November 2004 in that the impugned order dated 24th November 2004 in that the impugned order dated 24th November 2004 in Appeal No.17 of 2004 is set aside, so far as CTS 436 Appeal No.17 of 2004 is set aside, so far as CTS 436 Appeal No.17 of 2004 is set aside, so far as CTS 436 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to Respondent No.2 to re-hear the parties and thereafter Respondent No.2 to re-hear the parties and thereafter Respondent No.2 to re-hear the parties and thereafter pass appropriate orders according to law. The pass appropriate orders according to law. The pass appropriate orders according to law. The 2 Petitioners and Respondent No.1 to appear before Petitioners and Respondent No.1 to appear before Petitioners and Respondent No.1 to appear before Respondent No.2 on 27th December 2005 for further Respondent No.2 on 27th December 2005 for further Respondent No.2 on 27th December 2005 for further directions. directions. directions. . Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as . Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as . Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. to costs. to costs. (F.I.REBELLO J.) (F.I.REBELLO J.) (F.I.REBELLO J.) (ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (ROSHAN DALVI, J.)
(ROSHAN DALVI, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The matter is remanded to
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 13 Dec 2005. The bench was ROSHAN DALVI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.