SMT. INDUMATI H. BORSE v. ANIL KUMAR ZUNJURWAD & Anr.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 17 Mar 2008
- Bench
- H BHATIA
Outcome
Disposed of
The Appeals stand disposed of as per above
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. XXXIX r. 2
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. As the Appeals have been disposed of, Civil Application No. 1383 of 2007 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (J. H. BHATIA, J) (J. H. BHATIA, J) (J. H. BHATIA, J)
Judgment
MS. CHANDANA SALGAONKAR RUPIA, ADVOCATE, FOR THE APPELLANT. MRS. A.A. AGARWAL, ADVOCATE, FOR MR. V.P. SHINTRE AND ATUL G. DAMLE FOR THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1 AND 2. WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 276 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1383 OF 2007 ANIL KRISHNA ZUNJURWAD & ORS. ..APPELLANTS (ORIG. PLAINTIFFS) V/S SMT. INDUMATI BORSE & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS (ORIG. DEFENDANT) MRS. A.A. AGARWAL, ADVOCATE, FOR MR. V.P. SHINTRE AND MR. A.G. DAMLE, FOR THE APPELLANTS. MS. CHANDANA S. RUPIA, ADVOCATE,FOR THE RESPONDENT. MR. G.S. GODBOLE & MR. S.S. KANETKAR, ADVOCATES, FOR THE RESPONDENT NOS. 2, 3 & 5. : 2 : CORAM: J.H. BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H. BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 17TH MARCH, 2008. DATE : 17TH MARCH, 2008. DATE : 17TH MARCH, 2008. P.C.
A.O. No. 846 of 2006 is filed by the defendant while A.O. No. 276 of 2007 is filed by the plaintiffs. Plaintiff No.1 is present along with Mrs. Agarwal, Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs. Ms. Chandana Salgaonkar Rupia, Advocate for the original defendant is present along with the son of defendant. Mr. G.S. Godbole, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in Civil Application No. 1383 of 2007 who are the new developers and proposed defendants, is present with Respondent No. 5.
Operative part
After some discussion at the Bar the learned counsel for all the parties agree that both the Appeals be disposed of with following directions:- (a) that the defendant shall make total payment of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- to the plaintiff in full and final settlement of the entire claim. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 79,44,500/- has been already deposited by the defendants. The balance amount of Rs. 70,05,500/- shall be deposited by the defendants on or before 20th : 3 : April 2008 or on her behalf this amount may be deposited by the proposed defendant nos. 2 to 5, who are new developers. The plaintiff shall be entitled to withdraw the amount which is already deposited without furnishing any security. However, if that amount is invested in fixed deposit in bank then only the principal amount shall be withdrawn by the plaintiff and interest which might have accrued on that amount shall be paid by the defendant. The balance amount which shall now be deposited by the Respondent No. 2 to 5 shall also be allowed to be withdrawn by the plaintiff without security. After payment of this amount the plaintiff have no right interest or claim on the basis of the impugned agreements or on the land, structure thereon or the material which might be lying thereon. In view of this the suit No. 1006 of 2006 on the file of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, shall also stand disposed of. The application filed by the plaintiff before the trial court under order XXXIX Rule 2 of CPC shall also stand disposed of. The plaintiffs shall also withdraw the suit filed by them against the defendant - BMC. In case the defendant failed to deposit the balance amount by 20th April 2008 it shall carry the interest of 18% per annum. The Appeals stand disposed of as per above directions. : 4 :
As the Appeals have been disposed of, Civil Application No. 1383 of 2007 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (J. H. BHATIA, J) (J. H. BHATIA, J)
(J. H. BHATIA, J)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Appeals stand disposed of as per above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XXXIX r. 2.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 17 Mar 2008. The bench was H BHATIA.
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.