Vasant Raghunath Holkar And ANR. v. Priya Sameer Holkar And 3 ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Digitally signed by BALAJI GOVINDRAO PANCHAL Date:
2022.07.07 10:36:49 +0530 INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1321 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1736 OF 2019 WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (L) NO.25 OF 2022 BALAJI GOVINDRAO PANCHAL Shri. Vasant Raghunath Holkar and Anr.
..Applicants
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Ms. Priya Sameer Holkar ..Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Collector (GAD), Mumbai City, Mumbai and Ors.
..Respondents Mr. Uday Bobade i/by Mr. Aditya Andhorikar, for the Petitioner in WP No.1736/2019.
Mrs. Jyoti Chavan, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 4. Dr. Vipan Kumar a/w Trupti Bharadi & Krishna Dhodhi, for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 in WP No.1736/2019 & for Applicants in IA No.1321/2022 & in Contempt Petition. CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE : 6th JULY, 2022 P.C.
1.
In the main petition the challenge is to the order passed by the Senior Citizens Tribunal which is questioned by the widowed daughter-in-law.
2.
The petition is already admitted vide order dated 2nd May, 2018, wherein certain obligations were casted on
the petitioner such as payment of maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month, which I am informed is honoured, to maintain status-quo in respect of the properties belonging to the firm, namely, Print Home and Print World, to make repayment of the loan as against the mortgage of property/flat in Building No.22, Room No.401, Omkar Cooperative Housing Society, Nehru Nagar (East), Kurla, Mumbai in Kurla Nagrik Bank, also to secure the property being 905, Hari Kunj Co-operative Housing Society, Hemu Kalani Marg, Sindhi Society, Chembur, Mumbai-400 071 and to furnish the accounts in relation to the properties of the firm.
3.
It is claimed that the aforesaid order is breached as the certain properties of the firm are transferred without the consent of the applicants i.e. original respondents to the petition, accounts are not settled, accounts are not given and the loan liability not discharged.
4.
In the aforesaid background, the prayer in the interim application is for dismiss the petition by vacating the ad-interim order or else the compensation be directed to be paid.
5.
The prayer is objected by the original petitioner i.e. non-applicant to the interim application by filing detail reply. The contentions in said reply are disputed that to be
without any legal basis by the applicants in interim application.
6.
In the aforesaid background, as far as prayer for dismissal of petition is concerned, which was admitted after hearing parties to the same, no interference is warranted to the said extent.
7.
As far as prayer for payment of compensation is concerned, there is no basis made out in the application, even for grant of such prayer. Keeping such option open to the applicant by taking recourse to appropriate proceedings with complete details, I see no reason to interference.
8.
The interim application as such stands rejected with liberty as aforesaid.
[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]