REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

THRITY SAM SHROFF Appellant

V/S

SHIRAZ BYRAMJI ANKLESARIA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SARAT CHANDRA BANERJEE VS. NANI MOHANBANERJEE [REFERRED TO]
HARI BHUSAN DATTA VS. MANMATHA NATH DATTA [REFERRED TO]
MANEKJI MANCHERSHA JAVERI VS. PHIROZE BOMAN JAVERI [REFERRED TO]
KAMALAMMA VS. SOMASEKHARAPPA [REFERRED TO]
RAMA NAIDU VS. RANGAYYA NAIDU [REFERRED TO]
ISHWARDEO NARAIN SING VS. KAMTH DEVI [REFERRED TO]
DIWAN BROS VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
CHIRANJILAL SHRILAL GOENKA VS. JASJIT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. VIJAYA C GURSHANEY [REFERRED TO]
JADEJA PRAVINSINHJI ANANDSINHJI VS. JADEJA MANGALSINHJI SHIVSINHJI [REFERRED TO]
MALTIVAHUJI VS. KALINDIVAHUJI [REFERRED TO]
PANZY FERNANDAS VS. M F QUEOROS [REFERRED TO]
BARUMAL SINGH VS. 3RD ADDL DIST JUDGE SAHARANPUR [REFERRED TO]
A E G CARAPIET VS. A Y DERDERIAN [REFERRED TO]
BALAI LALL BANERJEE VS. DEBAKI KUMAR GANGULY [REFERRED TO]
SUSHILA BALA SAHA VS. SARASWATI MONDAL [REFERRED TO]
V M SKARIA VS. K T GEORGE [REFERRED TO]
INDIRA VINAYAK SAWANT VS. VIJAYENDRA UMAKANT SHETYE [REFERRED TO]
DEO KUMAR SINGH VS. KAILASH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SIDHNATH BHARTI VS. JAI NARAYAN BHARTI [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAMANI MAITY VS. BIPIN BEHARI SASMAL [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Admit. The learned advocate waives service for the respondents. By consent, heard forthwith.

(2.) The appeal arises from an order dated 11th January, 2007 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Notice of Motion No.117 of 2006 in Suit No.35 of 1996 in Petition No.84 of 1993. By the impugned order, the Learned Single Judge has discharged the notice of motion while imposing costs of Rs.10,000/- on the appellant. By the impugned order, the Learned Single Judge has held that in the civil suit the plaintiffs have died and it is not in dispute that the original petition was filed by them for probate of the Will of the deceased in their capacity as the executors as named in the Will, the suit abates and therefore, obviously the notice of motion in the suit, which does not remain pending for interim orders, cannot be entertained.

(3.) The appellant herein had taken out the said notice of motion seeking various reliefs including the relief for appointment of an Official Administrator for administration and governance of the estate of Late B.R.B.Vakil. The said notice of motion was opposed on behalf of the respondents contending the same to be not maintainable on account of abatement of the suit while contending that the right to sue does not survive on account of death of all the executors of the Will.

Click here to view full judgment.

THIRTY SAM SHROFF Vs. SHIRAZ

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address