2004 WRITWRITWRIT PETITION NO. 10212 OF 200 PETITION NO. 10212 OF 200 v. Mahendra Popatlal Shah
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
arrived at by the trial court in favour of respondents 1 and 2.
a The learned advocate respondent refering regarding arrears stated petitioner, submitted a admission arrears extent 4,90,817.40/-. The impugned sought challeged various grounds. It necessary Rs. address grounds, suffice ground decree passed Rs. direction payment arrears monthly amount 3679/-. On contrary discussion judgment passed refers amount payable Rs.
368.15/- month. The learned advocate respondent having realised limitations respondent counter contentions sought raised, (3) submitted inclined interfere matter setting impugned order, appellate directed to dispose of the appeal within the specified time and with that direction the petition may be disposed of.
Considering direction issued impugned deposit amount Rs. 4,90,817.40/- arrears Rs. 3679/- monthly payable, concurrence decree passed court, subject matter appeal, direction beyond adjudication matter before appellate cannot sustained. On itself impugned cannot sustained liable aside. As fairly submitted advocate respondent, circumstances case, purpose served keeping matter pending hearing ground itself setting impugned order, appellate directed dispose appeal expeditiously possible before 31st August 2005 hearing parties. Needless setting impugned limited extent direction regarding condition decree passed (4) court. The decree passed should continue, subject Petitioner depositing a Rs. 50,000/- appellate within weeks. The disposal amount subject decision passed appeal. The observations hereinabove purpose considering propriety legality impugned expressed opinion of any of the issues sought to be raised in the matter.
In result, therefore, petition succeeds limited ground stated above. The impugned hereby stated extent decided petitioner permitted continue deposit a Rs.
368.15/- during pendency appeal disposal thereof, besides depositing Rs. 50,000/- within further appellate authority dispose of the appeal on or before 31st August 2005 after hearing the parties.
Rule is made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs. ****
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Companies Act, 2013.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 20 Dec 2004. The bench was R M S KHANDEPARKAR.
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.