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

2006 Supreme(Bom) 251

A.M.KHANWILKAR
Ralph D-souza – Appellant
Versus
Danny D-souza – Respondent


( 1 ) HEARD counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) ADMIT.

( 3 ) MR. CLIVE Dsouza waives notice for respondent nos. 1 to 10. None appears for the respondent No. 11. Ms. Musle waives notice for respondent No. 12. The contesting respondents are respondent Nos. 1 to 10 who had filed the suit. The respondent No. 11 has not appeared even before the lower court. In the circumstances, as contesting parties are before the court, by consent, appeal is taken up for final disposal, as short question is involved.

( 4 ) THIS appeal from order takes exception to the judgment and Order passed by the City Civil Court, bombay dated 27th October, 2005 in Notice of Motion no. 1436 of 2004 in S. C. Suit No. 1795 of 2004. In the said suit respondent Nos. 1 to 10 took out Notice of motion No. 1436 of 2004 for temporary injunction. That Notice of Motion has been allowed in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 10 and against the appellants herein. The basis on which interim relief was sought by the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 to 10 is that they have purhcased flat in the building known as alexander Heights situated on the Plot No. 263, st. Anthonys Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071, some time back. They have now come t




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