Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Bombay High Court

M/S. Bajaj Constructions, Thr. ... vs Kalawati Wd/O Satyanarayan Chaube And ... on 22 December, 2022

Author: Vinay Joshi

Bench: Vinay Joshi

                                                  1                                   20wp8301.2022

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                                WRIT PETITION NO. 8301/2022

                   M/s Bajaj Constructions, thr. its Partner Mahesh Chetandas Bajaj
                                                  Vs.
                        Smt Kalawati wd/o Satyanarayan Chaube and others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,                                Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Mr P.R. Agrawal, Advocate for petitioner.

                                            CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, J.

DATED : 22/12/2022.

1. Heard.

2. The petitioner (defendant) has challenged the order of temporary injunction passed by the learned Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 245/2021, which was confirmed in the First Appeal.

3. The respondents claiming to be the tenant of suit shop premises, have filed a civil suit, seeking negative declaration that petitioner has no right to take possession of the suit property without following recourse of law. In the said suit, the respondents (plaintiffs) have applied for temporary injunction on two counts i.e. permit them to repay the suit property, as notice was issued by the Corporation, and secondly not to obstruct their possession.

4. It is the petitioner's contention that the subject property was initially let-out to the partnership firm, which has been dissolved meaning thereby respondents have lost the status of tenant. Further, it is ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 00:04:57 ::: 2 20wp8301.2022 contended that the suit property is kept vacant and thus there is no necessity to carry the repairs.

5. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable after four weeks.

(VINAY JOSHI, J.) rkn ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 00:04:57 :::