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

MOHIT S.SHAH, M.S.SONAK
Nitin Gandhi – Appellant
Versus
Dinyar Pheroz Dubash – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants/Applicants in Appeal 42/2014 & Notice of Motion No.537 of 2014 and For the Plaintiffs in Notice of Motion No.2308 of 2007:Mr. Shailesh Shah, Sr.Advocate a/w. Mr. Gargi Bhagwat i/b M/s. Divekar & Co.
For the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in Appeal No.42 of 2014 & Notice of Motion No.537 of 2014 and For the Defendants Nos.1 to 3 in Notice of Motion No.2308 of 2007: Mr. Ramchandran N. i/b Narayanan & Narayanan
For the Respondent No.4 in Appeal No.42 of 2014 & Notice of Motion No.537 of 2014 and For the Defendants No.4 in Notice of Motion No.2308 of 2007: Ms Usha R. Tiwari
For the Respondent No.5 in Appeal No.42 of 2014 & Notice of Motion No.537 of 2014:Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Rakesh Agarwal i/b N. Raja

JUDGMENT

M.S.Sonak, J.—This appeal is directed against the order dated 28 October 2013 in Chamber Summons No.2087 of 2011 in Suit No.1241 of 2007 declining the appellants (original plaintiffs) leave to implead subsequent purchaser of the suit property and for consequential amendments to the plaint.

2. We have heard Mr. Shailesh Shah, learned senior counsel for the appellants, Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, learned senior counsel for respondent No.5 (subsequent purchaser), Mr. Ramchandran N. for respondent Nos.1 to 3 (original defendant Nos.1 to 3) and Ms. Usha R. Tiwari for respondent No.4 (original defendant No.4). With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we have taken up not merely this appeal, but also Notice of Motion No.2308 of 2007 in Suit No.1241 of 2007 (Motion seeking interim reliefs in the Suit), for final hearing and disposal.

3. For the purposes of present appeal, the parties shall be referred to by their descriptions in the trial court, i.e., the appellants shall be referred to as the plaintiffs, respondent Nos.1 to 4 as the defendants and respondent No.5 as the ‘subsequent purchaser’, for the sake of convenience.

4. By four separate agreements dated 2 January 2014, def































































































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