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.R.Charities Pvt.Ltd vs Temples Charitable Inst.And Funds Of ... on 25 September, 2018

Author: K.R.Shriram

Bench: K.R.Shriram

                                            1/2                            4.NMS-1956-2008.doc




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                       NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1956 OF 2008
                                      IN
                             SUIT NO.1427 OF 1996
M.R. Charities Private Limited                      ....Applicant/Plaintiff
          Vs.
Temples Charitable Institutions and
Funds of the Goud Saraswat Brahmin
Community of Bombay and Ors.                        ....Defendants
          And
Mr. Vasudev P. Shetye and Ors.                      ....Respondents 
                                            ----
Mr. Gokhale I/b. M/s. Mahesh Jani and Co. for plaintiff/applicant.
Mr.   Sajio   Mathew   a/w.   Mr.   S.S.   Rege   I/b.   Crawford   Bayley   and   Co.   for
defendant nos.1 to 10.
Mr. Milind More, AGP for respondent no.11 in NMS/1956/2008.
Mr. B.V. Kulkarni, Deputy Director of Archeology and Museums, Mumbai
present.
                                            ----
                                             CORAM  : K.R.SHRIRAM, J.
                                             DATE      : 25th SEPTEMBER 2018
P.C.:

1                 Mr.   Gokhale,   counsel   for   applicant/plaintiff   states   that

respondents have submitted the documents as directed by this Court on the last occasion. Mr. Gokhale further states that respondents have also given a copy of the scheme to adopt a monument which Mr. Gokhale states was given today and he has to take instructions on the same. 2 Mr. Mathew, counsel for defendants states that the documents that respondents have provided to plaintiff are the same documents which he would have also provided and therefore, the Court should consider Gauri Gaekwad 2/2 4.NMS-1956-2008.doc defendants having complied with the Court's directions. 3 Stand over to 16th October 2018.





          Digitally signed
                                                                            (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)
          by Gauri Amit
Gauri     Gaekwad
Amit      Date:
          2018.09.26
Gaekwad   17:44:10
          +0530




                        Gauri Gaekwad