SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(SC) 1291

B.N.AGARWAL, HARJIT SINGH BEDI, G.S.SINGHVI
SAKHARAM GANESH AARAVANDEKAR – Appellant
Versus
MAHADEO VINAYAK MATHKAR – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Sudhanshu S. Choudhari and Naresh Kumar, Advocates, for the Petitioners.

ORDER

1. Taken on board. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

2. The petitioners are, however, granted time till 30-11-2008 to vacate the premises in question upon filing undertaking to this effect in this Court within four weeks from today.

3. It is needless to say that in case the respondents feel aggrieved by this order, it would be open to them to move this Court for its recall.

4. It is directed that in case the petitioners fail to vacate the premises in question within the aforesaid time, it would be open to the decree-holder to file an execution petition for delivery of possession and in case such a petition has been already filed, an application shall be filed therein to the effect that the petitioners have not vacated the premises in question within the time granted by this Court.

5. In either eventuality, the executing court is not required to issue any notice to the petitioners. The executing court will see that delivery of possession is effected within a period of fifteen days from the date of filing of the execution petition or the application af


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top