Skip to main content
NOTICE OF MOTION

Harikishan Nanakchand KhoslaVsSmt. Veena Khosla wd/o Amarnath Khosla

CNR MHCC0100643020199-COURT 09 ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE
City Civil Court, Mumbai
Mumbai · Maharashtra (MH)
CASE DISPOSED
Contested--DISMISSED
Decision Date: 04th September 2019

TrustJury record updated 21 Sept 2026

Case Overview

Registration Number
102317/2019
Registration Date
26 Jun 2019

Advocates

1

For Petitioner

For Respondent

    Not available

    Parties

    2

    Acts & Sections

    1
    Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act · Sec 9

    Case History / Proceedings

    Case History
    Date: 01-07-2019
    Business: Advocate Mr. Pandey for Plaintiff present
    None present for Defendant.
    Court is busy in hearing NM in suit no.2447/18 and suit no.4705/2008, hence case is adjourned to 26/08/2019.
    Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
    Next Hearing Date: 26-08-2019
    
    Date: 01-08-2019
    Business: Advocate Mr. Omprakash Pandey for Plaintiff present.
    Advocate Mr. Shirke for Defendant no.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 present and submitted that advocate Mr. Sawant is going to argue NM and he is held up in another court, however court can proceed with hearing argument of Plaintiff.
    Plaintiffs advocate submitted that Defendants are not ready for settlement hence he is intending to argue the NM.   Heard advocate for Plaintiff who has referred copy of family settlement and he has also referred disputed released deed which is filed at page no.87 of the plaint.  Advocate for Plaintiff argud that the family settlement proves the fact that suit property is joint family property however Defendants are not allowing Plaintiff to participate in joint family business which is referred at serial no.4 in the schedule annexed to the plaint hence Plaintiff is required to file this suit and he is required to pray for reliefs mentioned in NM.  For proving plffs participation in disputed business advocate for Plaintiff referred para no.5 of affidavit filed in support of NM along with complaint dated 26/04/2019 filed with police.  According to advocate for Plaintiff on the basis of family settlement, Plaintiff is participating in disputed business and he has right title and interest in suit property.  Therefore, Court Receiver is necessary to be appointed for the purpose of disputed business and for maintaining its accounts.  It is also argued that other reliefs prayed in NM in respect of creating third party interest by Defendants in suit property, dispossessing Plaintiff from suit property are also necessary to be granted.
    Advocate Mr. Sawant for Defendants submitted that Plaintiff is not participating in the disputed business and disputed release deed is dated 26/03/2015 and Plaintiff has falsely contended that in the month of April 2019 he had seen said released deed lying on the table.  It is argued that said false ground is raised by Plaintiff to bring his claim about released deed in limitation and there is no reason to believe said contention.  He submitted that if at all court will appoint court receiver Defendants may be appointed as agent of Court receiver for the purpose of running disputed business.  It is argued that Plaintiff is residing with Defendants.  Lastly, it is submitted that Plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs sought in NM.
    Case is adjourned to 13/08/2019 for order on NM no.2317/19.
    Next Purpose: NM  ORDERS
    Next Hearing Date: 13-08-2019
    
    Date: 13-08-2019
    Business: Advocate Madhvi Rai for Plaintiff present
    Advocate P. G. Sawant for Defendant nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 present
    Court is busy in dictating Judgment in suit no.5559/07, hence case is adjourned to 03/09/2019 for NM order.
    Next Purpose: NM  ORDERS
    Next Hearing Date: 03-09-2019
    
    Date: 03-09-2019
    Business: Adv. Omprakash Pandey for plaintiff present.
    All defendants are present.
    Board is discharged due to want of electricity.
    Case is adjourned to for NM orders 04/09/2019
    Next Purpose: NM  ORDERS
    Next Hearing Date: 04-09-2019
    
    Date: 03-09-2019
    Business: Adv. Omprakash Pandey for plaintiff present.
    All defendants are present.
    Board is discharged due to want of electricity.
    Case is adjourned to for NM orders 04/09/2019
    Next Purpose: NM  ORDERS
    Next Hearing Date: 04-09-2019
    
    Date: 04-09-2019
    Business: Advocate Madhvi Rai for Plaintiff present
    None present for Defendant.
    F.R.S.R. following order has passed-
                                         ORDER
    Notice of Motion no.2317 of 2019 stands disposed off/dismissed.
    Plaintiffs advocate submitted that matter may be fixed on 09/09/2019 so that with consent of parties matter can be referred for mediation.
    Case is adjourned to 09/09/2019 for settlement.
    Nature Of Disposal: DISMISSED
    Disposal Date: 04-09-2019

    Additional Case Details

    Additional Case Details
    Filing Number: 106857/2019
    Filing Date: 26-06-2019
    First Hearing Date: 01st July 2019
    Decision Date: 04th September 2019
    Court Number And Judge: 9-COURT 09 ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE

    Orders

    1
    Final Order 1
    04 Sept 2019
    Order Details: Other
    Pdf Text: Advocate Madhvi Rai for Plaintiff present None present for Defendant. F.R.S.R. following order
    has passed- ORDER Notice of Motion no.2317 of 2019 stands disposed off/dismissed. Plaintiffs
    advocate submitted that matter may be fixed on 09/09/2019 so that with consent of parties matter
    can be referred for mediation. Case is adjourned to 09/09/2019 for settlement.
    -- 1 of 1 --

    TrustJury presents public court-record information for legal discovery and reference. Record availability and detail can vary by source and case.