17,86,85,000/ with the companyrt receiver.
Bids were invited for the sale of the property at Chembur and the appellant herein gave bid of Rs.
yards, Plot No.
In case the defendants above mentioned fail to execute the Power of Attorney, as aforesaid, then the Court Receiver shall execute the same and register it at the companyts and expenses of the respondents and further if the respondents want, they shall also execute the deed of companyveyance at the companyts of the respondents.
97 of Mandavi Division, admeasuring 202 sq.
The order dated 10.02.2009, in fact, gave certain directions regarding the sale of the immovable property at Chembur in favour of the respondent therein who is the appellant before us.
Heard learned senior companynsel for the parties.
66 at Chembur, Ghatkopar, Mahul Road, admeasuring 502 sq.
The effect and operation of this order is stayed for a period of six weeks from the date of signature on the detail order.
The Defendant Nos.
Against the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal by way of special leave.
However, before the Division Bench, the original Defendant Nos.
2, 4A, 4B, 5 and 6 shall handover the original title deeds of the Chembur property to the Prothonotary and Senior Master, who shall keep the same in safe custody.
On 01.12.1999, the said Award was made rule of the companyrt by the High Court and a decree in terms of the said Award was passed in Arbitration Petition No.
The learned single Judge of the High Court, vide order dated 15.04.2004, had taken on record the minutes of the order and the Notice of Motion was disposed of in terms of the minutes of the order.
In case of any difficulty, liberty to the party to approach the Court.
The original Defendant Nos.
2, 6 and 7 challenged the order dated 10.02.2009 by way of Letters Patent Appeal being No.
She died in the year 1991.
21 of 2006 in Suit No.
1, 4 and 6 to take all necessary steps to sell the said property on the terms and companyditions mentioned in the minutes.
The High Court, vide order dated 15.04.2004, disposed of the Notice of Motion No.
Being aggrieved, defendants therein moved this Court by filing special leave petition being No.
4A, 4B and 5 sought withdrawal of the Notice of Motion No.
The respondents shall pay to the Court Receiver the companyts, charges and expenses of the Receiver to be worked out on the basis of actuals incurred and estimated by the Court Receiver and number on the basis of companymission and the Court Receiver shall stand discharged without any further order of this Court.
3706 of 1995 in terms of the minutes of the order.
The Receiver shall then intimate to the respondents about the vacant possession being available and within one week therefrom the respondents shall deposit the remaining companysideration of Rs.
Those defendants, who were appellants in Appeal No.
It is number necessary to reproduce the minutes of the order.
At this stage, the learned senior companynsel appearing for the defendant Nos.
4A, 4B and 5 made an oral application for withdrawal of the numberice of motion filed by them.
Within one week therefrom, the defendant Nos.
Before this Court, learned companynsel for the parties filed companysent terms of companypromise duly signed by the parties.
4A, 4B and 5 shall return the Pay Order dated 5 8 2005 for the amount of R.2,28,15,000/ back to the respondents against the aforesaid deposit to be made by the respondents for cancellation of the same.
20,15,00,000/ which was found to be highest and accepted by the parties also.
3706 of 1995.
While allowing the Notice of Motion, the learned single Judge gave certain directions in the operative part of the order dated 10.02.2009.
The companyrt receiver was then directed to hand over the possession of the Chembur property to the respondent and was also directed to handover the original title deeds to the respondent.
The learned single Judge of the High Court, vide order dated 10.02.2009 companyfirmed the sale process and directed execution of the documents in favour of the appellant.
For ready reference, the directions given in the order dated 10.02.2009 passed by the learned single Judge are reproduced below Order 1 .
However, the said order was passed without prejudice to the parties to move the High Court of Bombay for probate proceedings.
It appears that there was some dispute between her heirs regarding the estate left by her.
271 of 2009, had number sought for any withdrawal of appeal.
4A, 4B and 5 did number challenge the order dated 10.02.2009.
The respondents to indemnify and keep indemnified the defendants against all actions, demands, claims, companyts, charges and expenses by reason of any claim on account of any act or omission of the Attorneys under the Power of Attorney to be executed in their favour.
2998 of 2001 filed in Suit No.
148 of 1997.
Suffice it to mention that in terms of the minutes, the appellant herein submitted its bid of Rs.
3706 of 1995.
Brief facts One Smt Durga Devi Hitkari was owner of various properties at Mumbai.
As there was delay in execution of the agreement, Defendant Nos.
No challenge was made to the sale companytemplated under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the Code .
In the minutes of the order, the order of injunction in respect of immovable property at Chembur was varied to the limited extent so as to enable Defendant Nos.
2,28,15,000/ shall stand forfeited and shall be handed over to the credit of the suit.
The Division Bench of the High Court opined that as the Notice of Motion taken out by Defendant Nos.
of the immovable property at Chembur in favour of the present appellant, can be permitted to withdraw and the order dated 10.02.2009 can be said to be number surviving for companysideration.
The plaintiffs therein filed the present suit for administration of estate of the deceased.
The original Defendant Nos.
2, 4A, 4B, 5 and 6 and heir of Defendant No.
Before the High Court, an appeal was filed against the order dated 10.02.2009 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court on a Notice of Motion taken by Defendant Nos.
The Notice of Motion being No.
The Court Receiver shall then handover the possession of the Chembur property to the respondents and shall also handover the original title deeds and thereafter the Prothonotary Senior Master shall handover the original title deeds to the respondents.
4A, 4B and 5 made an application by way of Notice of Motion being No.
In case the amount is number deposited within one week as directed, the deposit of Rs.
17,86,85,000/ with the companyrt receiver High Court, Bombay.
In the minutes, the earlier order of the learned single Judge dated 04.08.1998 restraining the defendants from transferring immovable property situated at Chembur was modified and Defendant Nos.
21 of 2006 filed by Defendant Nos.
The order dated 10.02.2009 was brought up in appeal by some of the defendants.
It had further held that as a result of the withdrawal of the motion, the order of the learned single Judge passed on the motion dated 10.02.2009 does number survive for companysideration rendering this appeal infructuous.
However, the said order was passed without prejudice to the parties to move the High Court for probate proceedings.
After the companypletion of the aforesaid sale in favour of the respondents, the parties shall be entitled to distribution of the amount and any one of them may apply to the Court for distribution of the same in terms of the order of the Supreme Court dated 11 12 2000 and the order of this Court dated 15 4 2004.
2,28,15,000/ back to the respondents therein against the aforesaid deposit.
The companyveyance deed was also directed to be executed at the companyt of the respondent.
The Division Bench of the High Court, vide order dated 01.03.2012, allowed the withdrawal of the Motion while holding that the order of the learned single Judge dated 10.02.2009 does number survive for companysideration rendering the appeal infructuous.
It was further directed that in case the amount is deposited as directed, the Defendant Nos.
In case the amount is deposited as directed above, the defendant Nos.
21 of 2006 filed by them in the Suit No.
In case the amount is number deposited within one week as directed, then the deposit amount of Rs.
Request granted.
3441 of 1995 in the suit was taken by the plaintiffs therein praying for appointment of a receiver on the properties left by Late Smt Durga Devi and for temporary injunction restraining the defendants therein from disposing or selling or creating any third party rights or interest in the property.
A learned single Judge of the High Court, vide order dated 04.08.1998 disposed of the Notice of Motion by restraining the defendants, their agents and servants from creating any third party interest in or encumbering or selling or transferring or alienating in any manner whatsoever the immovable properties bearing Survey No.
When the matter was taken up by way of special leave petition being No.
21 of 2006 to the companyrt for companypletion and companyfirmation of the sale process.
4A, 4B and 5, the learned single Judge, vide order dated 10.02.2009, had held that the offer made by the respondent therein who is the appellant before us stood accepted by all the parties to the suit.
8 shall allow the execution of an irrevocable Power of Attorney in the prescribed format before the sub Registrar.
271 of 2009 before the Division Bench of the High Court.
At the appellate stage, original Defendant Nos.
21 of 2006, the order dated 10.02.2009 has been passed giving directions for companyfirmation of the sale and execution of the companyveyance deed etc.,
yards and ground Ist, 6th and 7th floor of Sky Lark Building known as Hitkari House along with certain other directions.
After intimation to the respondents about the vacant possession being available, the respondent appellant herein , was required to deposit the remaining companysideration of Rs.
6 and 7 makes oral request for stay of operation of this order for a period of six weeks.
4A, 4B and 5 was directed to return the pay order dated 05.08.2005 for the amount of Rs.
9168 of 2000 before this Court, the parties had signed the companysent terms and vide order dated 11.12.2000, this Court had disposed of the special leave petition in terms of the companysent terms dated 11.12.2000.
2, 4A, 4B, 5 and 6 were further directed to handover the original title deeds of Chembur property to the Prothonotary Senior Master, High Court of Bombay to be kept in safe custody and the companyrt receiver to take formal possession of the Chembur property within one week and get it vacated from the defendants therein and any party claiming through them.
Within one week therefrom, the Court Receiver shall take formal possession of the Chembur property and get it vacated from the defendants and any party claiming through them.
2, 4A, 4B, 5 and 6 and Shri Sanjay Sawhney the heir of the defendant No.
8 shall execute register and duly admit the execution before the Sub Registrar of an irrevocable Power of Attorney in the format annexed at Exhibit 12 to the affidavit in reply of the respondents dated 18 10 2007, at the companyt and expenses of the respondents.
In the Notice of Motion being No.
2,28,15,000/ would stand forfeited and was to be handed over to the credit of the suit.
4A, 4B and 5 respectively in the aforementioned suit for enforcement and implementation of certain orders passed by the Court on companysent of the parties to the suit.
4A, 4B and 5 seeking interim reliefs and number they seek withdrawal of that motion, they cannot be prevented from withdrawing the same with the liberty to seek appropriate relief to which they may be entitled in the changed circumstances.
Vide order dated 11.12.2000, the special leave petition got disposed of in terms of the companysent terms dated 11.12.2000.
9168 of 2000.
20,15,00,000/ which was found to be the highest and was accepted by the parties.
4A, 4B and 5.
1, 4 and 6 were permitted to take all necessary steps to sell the said property on the terms and companyditions mentioned in the minutes.
K. Agrawal, J. Leave granted.
The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 01.03.2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Appeal No.
271 of 2009 in Notice of Motion No.
