MIHEER MAFATLAL Vs. MAFATLAL GAGALBHAI & SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Advocates. Counsel for the Plaintiff argued on prayer (b) of the Notice of Motion to direct the Defendants to return to the Plaintiff all the shares and security listed in Exhibit 'B' of the Plaint. However, during the arguments Mr.Desai showed his willingness to allow the Defendants to retain shares to the extent of Rs.20,00 lakhs in order to cover the so called liability of the Plaintiff as disclosed at page 58 of the affidavit-in-reply.

(2.) THE Claim of the Plaintiff was opposed strongly by the Counsel for the Defendants mainly on the ground of limitations. According to him, the suit of the Plaintiff being in respect of movable property and recovery of movable property and recovery of movable property either of the Articles 68,69 or 70 of the Limitation Act were applicable to the present case and since the suit of the Plaintiff was filed more than 8/9 years of his demand and refusal by the Defendants, the suit was barred by limitation.

(3.) SINCE the point of limitation is raised and it can be decided as preliminary issues and both the parties advanced their arguments on this issue, I am taking this issues first for determination.