JURISDICTION IN NOTICE OF IN WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. OF 2012 v. Jignesh Shah & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Appeal is disposed of
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Appeal is disposed of. Since the appeal is disposed of, notice of motion for stay is also disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE (ANOOP V MOHTA, J.) 4 of 4
- Para 55. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the order that we propose to pass in the appeal against the orders dated 12 March 2012 and 9 April 2012, we are of the view that delay in filing the appeal…
Judgment
Mr.Prasad S. Dani with Mr.V.V.Salunkhe for Respondent No.2. Dr.Milind Sathe, Sr.Advocate with Mr.S.A.K.Najame-es-Sani with Mr.Nirav Barot i/b Maneksha & Sethna for Respondent No.1. Mr.V.A.Thorat, Sr.Advocate with Mr.S.A.Sawant for applicants. Mr.H.G.Pimple for respondent-BMC. Mr.P.Y.Ladekar, Court Receiver is present. CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & DATE : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. 29 November 2012. P.C. Leave under Rules 147 & 148 of High Court (O.S.) Rules is granted to applicants to take out notice of motion in terms of draft handed in. Notice of motion is made returnable forthwith.
#2. This notice of motion is taken out for condonation 5 months delay in filing the appeal against the orders dated 12 March 2012 and 9 April 2012. 1 of 4 kambli
#3. 2 APP(L)-833-12 Learned counsel for applicants submits that since what was granted is only an ad-interim injunction. Notice of motion was being listed for hearing from time to time, the applicants (original defendants Nos. 1 to 5) were of the bonafide belief that the notice of motion would be heard expeditiously and defendants Nos. 1 to 5 would be able to persuade the learned trial Judge to vacate the ad-interim injunction. However, ad-interim injunction granted on 12 March 2012 is still operating against the applicants and therefore the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned.
#4. Learned counsel for the original plaintiff opposes the notice of motion and submits that this cannot be treated as valid explanation for condoning the delay.
#5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the order that we propose to pass in the appeal against the orders dated 12 March 2012 and 9 April 2012, we are of the view that delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned.
#6. Accordingly, notice of motion is allowed and the delay is condoned. CHIEF JUSTICE (ANOOP V MOHTA, J.) 2 of 4 kambli 3 APP(L)-833-12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (L) NO.833 OF 2012 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.443 OF 2012 IN SUIT NO.1512 OF 2009 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. OF 2012 (FOR STAY) … Jignesh Shah & ors. v/s. ...Applicants Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. & ors. ...Respondents … Mr.Prasad S. Dani with Mr.V.V.Salunkhe for Respondent No.2. Dr.Milind Sathe, Sr.Advocate with Mr.S.A.K.Najame-es-Sani with Mr.Nirav Barot i/b Maneksha & Sethna for Respondent No.1. Mr.V.A.Thorat, Sr.Advocate with Mr.S.A.Sawant for Appellants. Mr.H.G.Pimple for respondent-BMC. Mr.P.Y.Ladekar, Court Receiver is present. CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & DATE : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. 29 November 2012. P.C. This appeal is directed against the ad-interim oprders dated 12 March 2012 and 9 April 2012.
#2. Having regard to the urgency in the matter and having regard to the fact that the project of construction of more than 1,00,000 sq.feet is held up on account of the litigation and as a result the 3 of 4 kambli 4 APP(L)-833-12 defendants Nos. 1 to 5 are not in a position to pay the amounts payable to the Municipal Corporation for Gr.Mumbai, which was Rs.18 crores and odd amount at the relevant time and which amount with interest has gone up to Rs.29 crores and odd, we dispose of this appeal with a request to the learned Single Judge to hear and decide the notice of motion and other connected matters in Suit No.1512 of 2009 as expeditiously as possible and preferably by 21 December 2012.
#4. Appeal is disposed of. Since the appeal is disposed of, notice of motion for stay is also disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE (ANOOP V MOHTA, J.) 4 of 4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Appeal is disposed of
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 29 Nov 2012. The bench was ANOOP V MOHTA.
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.