The main legal point established in the judgment is that an unsigned consent order in a trust dispute cannot be finalized and binding, and caution should be exercised against uploading and drawing a decree based on the unsigned order.

1. Heard by consent of the parties finally.

2. Both the counsel made their respective submissions and the matter was closed for orders on 31.08.2012. The parties were directed to file written notes of arguments. However, as noted and as there was no arguments made with regard to the Chamber Summons and the Notices of Motions referred in last paragraph of order dated 5 August 2005, the matters were listed for clarification on this part; and for supply of copies; and for re-hearing as those matters were not part of the main hearing. On 5 October, 2012 the 3nms 201-12. time was sought to file the same and it was accordingly extended. The Office was also directed to place all these Notices of Motions and the chamber summon along with the main matter on 10.10.2012. The time was sought again and accordingly the matter was adjourned for 19.10.2012 for re-hearing.

3. The parties filed the additional compilations of documents. The parties were also directed to file a short synopsis and written notes of arguments revolving around these disposed of Notice of Motions and the chamber summons. On 29.10.2012, re-heard both the learned senior counsel appearing for the parties. No specific and/or extra arguments were made. All have been relying on the arguments already advanced orally as well as in writing.

4. Following are the prayers of the Notice of Motion No.201/2012: a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records which contain the original order dated 4 nms201-12.j 5th August 2005 as passed by his Lordship, Justice S. U. Kamdar (as he then was) and affix the signature on the same; b) In the alternative this Hon'ble Court may take on record the agreements that are signed by the parties and their respective counsel appearing at the relevant time on their behalf as a compromise/agreement and an order/decree be passed in terms of the same; c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Notice of Motion, the respective parties be directed to maintain the status-quo of the trust properties.

5. Certain events of the background litigations, as per the Petitioner, dealt in Notice of Motion No.201/2012 in Trust Petition No.1/2001, is as under:- On 04/08/31, the grand father of the Petitioner Shri Jethabhai Govindji registered/created a private trust by Deed dated 4.8.1931 under Sr. No.3204 of 1931, whereby he settled his properties for the 5 nms201-12.benefit of his wife Jamnabai and his son Narrotamdas J. Merchant for and during his life time and thereafter the properties were to be devolved equally upon the two sons of Narrotamdas namely the Petitioner and Respondent No.2.The property herein bearing C.S. No.1524 on Girgaum Division with structures/buildings thereon was one of the properties mentioned in the Trust deed besides several others. 24.3.1935, Seth Jethabhai Govindji expired and the Trust continued to be managed by the Suriving Trustee. Some time in May, 1943, Narrotamdas Jethabhai, father of Petitioner (Ravindran) was inducted as a co-trustee of the trust by then surviving Trustees. Respondent No.1, Mrs. Niranjani N. Merchant, the Petitioner's mother, was inducted as a co-Trustee of the Trust by the then Surviving Trustees, some time in 1948. The Petitioner, who was and is one of the beneficiaries, was inducted as a co-Trustee of the Trust in October 1963. On 12/12/97, the Petitioner filed Suit No.44 of 1998 for removal of his father, Narrotamdas Jethabhai, as a Trustee for allegedly committing blatant breaches and misappropriation of the Trust properties by the gifts and by his Will, when he had only a life interest therein. He had also claimed title to the Trust properties and 6 nms201-12. denied the existence of the Trust. He used Trust funds to purchase shares and securities and Lonavla property. On 8 October, 2000, the Father of the Petitioner Seth Narottamdas Jethabhai expired. On his death, Clause 5(b) and 14 and 1 of the said Trust on became operative. The Trust properties were now required to be div