1 WP 354 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO. 354 OF 2013

City and Industrial Development

Corporation of Maharashtra Limited

(CIDCO),

Through their Authorized Signatory,

Shri Sanjay K. Karhad, major,

having office at CIDCO Bhavan,

3^rd floor, CBD Belapur,

Navi Mumbai 400 614. ….. Petitioners.

V e r s u s

Rashmi Constructions Pvt. Ltd.,

A Company incorporated under the

Indian Companies Act, 1956,

having their Office at Niteen Chambers,

Vasco-da-Gama, Goa.

Represented herein by their Director

Shri N. P. Vasu Niar. …... Respondents

Shri A. Kantak, Advocate for the Petitioners.

Shri A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the Respondents.

CORAM: C. V. BHADNAG, J.

DATE: 11TH JANUARY, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

Heard Shri Kantak, the learned counsel for the

petitioners and Shri Diniz, the learned counsel for the

respondents.

2 WP 354 2013

2. The petition challenges the order dated 16/2/2013

passed by the Executing Court by which the application

Exhibit 55 filed by the petitioner/Decree Holders for

summoning Ms. Manda Bhadekar, the former Director of the

respondent/company for being examined in the Execution

Case has been rejected. The application was purportedly filed

under Order 21 Rule 41 of C.P.C. The trial Court has

dismissed the application by the impugned order dated

16/2/2013 inter alia on the ground that the application was

not filed by a person who was authorized to file the same and

that Ms. Manda Bandekar was only a formal director.

3.

It is undisputed that since after the filing of the petition

Ms. M. Bandekar has expired on 13/1/2015. In such

circumstances, the prayer for summoning of Ms. Manda

Bandekar for being examined does not survive. It is further

undisputed that the petitioner has now filed an application

before the Executing Court seeking summons to Mr. Narayan

Bandekar which is pending before the Executing Court. The

Executing Court has kept that application in abeyance on

3 WP 354 2013

account of the pendency of the present petition. Be that as it

may, the present petition has become infructuous and as

such the same is disposed of, with no order as to costs.

Needless to mention that the Executing Court shall decide

the application dated 4/5/2013, in the context of the

provisions of Order 21 Rule 41 of C.P.C and in accordance

with law. It is made clear that the Executing Court shall not

be influenced by the observations made in the impugned

order dated 16/2/2013.

C. V. BHADANG, J.

Ap/-