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]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Jaidev Rajnikant Shroff vs Poonam Jaidev Shroff on 30 August, 2017

Bench: N.V. Ramana, D.Y. Chandrachud

                                                        1



     ITEM NO.110                               COURT NO.9                  SECTION III

                                   S U P R E M E C O U R T O F        I N D I A
                                           RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

     Civil Appeal                 No(s).   2634/2017

     JAIDEV RAJNIKANT SHROFF                                               Appellant(s)

                                                       VERSUS

     POONAM JAIDEV SHROFF                                                  Respondent(s)

     (IA No.56292/2017-Application for vacation of the interim order
     dated 27.1.2017 and IA No. 41161/2017- Application for directions)

     Date : 30-08-2017 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

     CORAM :
                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
                             HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD

     For Appellant(s)
                                       Mr.   Mukul Rohatgi, Sr.Adv.
                                       Dr.   A.M. Singhvi, Sr.Adv.
                                       Mr.   Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.
                                       Mr.   Vivek Jain, Adv.
                                       Ms.   Parul Shukla, Adv.
                                       Mr.   Samir Tapia, Adv.
                                       Mr.   Zulfiqar Menon, Adv.
                                       Mr.   Komal Joshi, Adv.
                                       Ms.   Devika Mohan, Adv.
                                       Mr.   E. C. Agrawala, AOR
     For Respondent(s)
                                       Mr.   Shyam Divan, Sr.Adv.
                                       Ms.   Madhvi Divan, Adv.
                                       Mr.   Ankur Chawla, Adv.
                                       Mr.   Rahul Pratap Rudy, Adv.
                                       Mr.   Harshvardhan Jha, Adv.
                                       Mr.   Karan Kumar Gogna, Adv.
                                       Mr.   Aamir Khan, Adv.
                                       For   M/s. Parekh & Co., AOR

                              UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Signature Not Verified
                                                 O R D E R

Digitally signed by SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR Date: 2017.09.05 12:12:53 PKT Reason: Heard learned counsel for the parties.

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for both the sides mentioned that the connected matter is listed for 2 hearing on 25th October, 2017 and have requested that this matter be also listed along with that matter.

Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, while agreeing for adjourning the matter to 25 th October, 2017, made a request that his client needs her passport and some personal belongings, which are in the cupboards of the house of the appellant.

Dr. A.M. Singhvi, and Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, however, opposed the aforesaid prayer on the ground that the issues between the parties are under negotiation and hence it was argued that there is no need to allow the respondent's prayer at this stage. Moreover, learned senior counsel states that if the respondent is allowed to enter into the house of the appellant, there is an apprehension that she might create an unruly situation.

However, after hearing learned senior counsel for the parties and taking note of facts and circumstances of the case, we think it fit and proper to allow a representative of the respondent to visit the house of the appellant in the presence of both the learned counsel for the parties and an officer to be nominated by the Registrar (Original Side) of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, to take the passport and personal belongings of the respondent.

Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel, however, made a further request that a locksmith may be allowed to open only those of the cupboards in the house of the appellant where the belongings of the respondent are kept, since the appellant states that he does 3 not have the keys to the cupboards. In the circumstances, we permit a locksmith to open the cupboards in presence of the aforesaid persons.

Accordingly, we request the Registrar (Original Side) of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay to nominate an officer for this purpose and fix the date and time on which the representative of respondent, learned Counsel for both sides and the officer appointed by the Registrar shall visit the house of the appellant. The respondent shall pay an honorarium, quantified at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the officer, so nominated by the Registrar (Original Side), High Court of Judicature at Bombay, for this purpose.

The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Registrar (Original Side) of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.

The Registrar (Original Side), High Court of Judicature at Bombay shall forward a report of the officer designated in terms of the above directions to this Court by the next date of hearing. List this matter on 25th October, 2017.

(SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR)                           (S. SIVARAMAKRISHNA)
    AR CUM PS                                    ASST.REGISTRAR