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 2]

Bombay High Court

Shri. Lily Suriyan Charles Srinivasan vs Mhada Gulmohar Residents Welfare ... on 2 November, 2018

Dixit
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.31914 OF 2018
                                           IN
                      APPEAL FROM ORDER (STAMP) NO.31907 OF 2018

        Lily Suriyan Charles Srinivasan and Ors.                      .... Applicants
                      V/s.
        MHADA Gulmohar Residents Welfare
        Association, Mumbai and Ors.                                  .... Respondents



        Mr. Subhash P. Nalavade for the Applicant.

        Mr. Ahmad Abdi for Respondent No.1.

        Mr. P.G. Lad for Respondent No.2-MHADA.

        Mr. Y.Y. Dabke, A.G.P., for Respondent No.4-State.



                                  CORAM         : DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
                                  DATE          : 2 ND NOVEMBER, 2018.

        P.C. :

        .        Not on Board. Upon mentioning, taken on Board.


2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

3. Learned counsel for the Applicants seeks stay to the order passed by the learned Trial Court on the ground that, the 'Warrant of Possession', to vacate the premises on or before 5 th November 2018, is issued. However, it is pertinent to note that, the impugned order is passed by the Trial Court on 29 th August 2018. Despite that, the Applicants have maintained silence and did not file Appeal immediately.

1/2

CAA(St.)-31914-18.doc ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:42:31 ::: Today, on the last day before Diwali Vacation, the Applicants have preferred this Appeal and Civil Application seeking stay to the said order; especially when, on merits, the case of the Applicants is not accepted by the Trial Court and that is because, already the order is passed by the Estate Officer and also by the Appellate Forum.

4. In such situation, unless the Applicants deposit the amount in the Court, may be, without prejudice to their rights, the stay cannot be granted.

5. Hence, this Civil Application seeking stay to the 'Warrant of Possession' is rejected.

[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] 2/2 CAA(St.)-31914-18.doc ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:42:31 :::