CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 2009 › Bharatnagar Swetamber M.p.jain Sangh&ors v. Hitesh Pannalal

Bharatnagar Swetamber M.p.jain Sangh&ors v. Hitesh Pannalal Mehta .

Supreme Court of India · 9 October 2009

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
9 October 2009
Case no.
C.A. No. 6520 of 2002
Bench
B.N. Agrawal, Aftab Alam
Length
2 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6520 OF 2002

Bharatnagar Swetamber M.P. Jain
Sangh & Ors.
...Appellant(s)

Versus

Hitesh Pannalal Mehta & Ors. ...Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

I.A. No.1 of 2009 for substitution is allowed and the three substituted trustees, viz., Ms. Kshama Haresh Mehta, Mr. Prafull Anubhai Shah and Ms. Punita Haresh Mehta, are impleaded as Respondent Nos.3A, 3B and 3C. Vakalatnamas duly signed by the three substituted trustees have been filed in court and are taken on record.

A compromise petition duly signed by all the parties on 10th October, 2007 was earlier filed in this case. The aforesaid three substituted trustees have filed affidavits today in court accepting the consent terms. The affidavits are taken on record.

We have perused the compromise petition and the affidavits, referred to above. We are satisfied that the compromise is lawful. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed

...2/- of in terms enumerated in the compromise petition. The compromise petition and the three affidavits filed by the substituted trustees shall form part of this order. The impugned order stands modified, accordingly, in terms of the compromise.

......................J.
[B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J. [AFTAB ALAM] New Delhi, October 09, 2009.

Ask CaseMinister about Bharatnagar Swetamber M.p.jain Sangh&ors v. Hitesh Pannalal Mehta .

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp