Rodium Realty Limited vs Dilip Jairam Mukkawar
2022 Latest Caselaw 8785 Bom

                                                                         7-OSCOMAP-64-2022.DOC




                      Shephali



                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                 IN ITS COMMERCIAL APPELLATE DIVISION
                                     COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 64 OF 2022
                                                           IN
                                     CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 871 OF 2019
                                                           IN
                                  SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 49 OF 2017


                      Rodium Realty Ltd                                           ...Appellant
                             Versus
                      Dilip Jairam Mukkawar                                     ...Respondent


SHEPHALI
SANJAY
MORMARE
                      Mr Rubin Vakil, i/b Tejas Shah, for the Appellant.
Digitally signed by
                      Mr Ramesh Jain, for the Respondent.
SHEPHALI SANJAY
MORMARE
Date: 2022.09.06
11:26:20 +0530




                                               CORAM        G.S. Patel &
                                                            Gauri Godse, JJ.

                                               DATED:       5th September 2022
                      PC:-

1. Pursuant to our order of 3rd August 2022, there is a further Affidavit filed by the Respondent from page 204 onwards. In addition, the statements of certain bank accounts have been handed over this morning. Mr Jain states that those bank accounts with the Babaji Date Mahila Sahakari Bank at Sr. Nos. 10, 11 and 12 at pages 206 and 207 are dormant.

5th September 2022 7-OSCOMAP-64-2022.DOC

2. Mr Vakil for the Appellants makes a grievance in regard to the contents of paragraph 11 of the Affidavit at page 208. This paragraph is an explanation for the interest income shown in the Respondent's tax returns. The explanation is that there was an immovable property that belonged to the Respondent's father-in-law. That property was bequeathed by a Will by the Respondent's father-in- law to the Respondent's minor children. The Respondent's father- in-law is still alive. In his lifetime, the plot was acquired by the Government. The Respondent's father-in-law distributed the compensation received in different banks and in different name combinations although the entire compensation was gifted to the Respondent's children. Some portion of it was in the names of the Respondent's two children (a son and a daughter) and since the Respondent was their guardian, the interest received and the TDS deducted were shown to the credit/debit of the Respondent, the children's income being clubbed with that of the natural guardian. We do not see how this paragraph can be said to be insufficient or inadequate compliance with our order.

3. The Appeal itself is against an impugned order dated 20th April 2022 at page 14, by which the learned Single Judge (AK Menon J) referred to a previous order of 25th November 2021 by NJ Jamadar J directing a disclosure. AK Menon J said that the Plaintiff was entitled to apply in execution. The complaint of the Plaintiff in Appeal is that the disclosure following the order of 25th November 2021 was inadequate.

5th September 2022 7-OSCOMAP-64-2022.DOC

4. Now that the Respondent filed the two Affidavits mentioned above, we do not think that anything survives in the Appeal. The Affidavits filed in the Appeal will be treated as Affidavits filed in the execution proceedings.

5. The Appellant is at liberty to proceed in execution in accordance with law. Liberty to the Appellants also to file a suitable application for further disclosures if so warranted.

(Gauri Godse, J)                                       (G. S. Patel, J)





                            5th September 2022