w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Nayana Sudhir Shah & Others v/s Sudhir Premji Shah & Others

    Review Petition No. 18 of 2021 in Writ Petition No. 7982 of 2018

    Decided On, 09 December 2021

    At, High Court of Judicature at Bombay

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. GADKARI

    For the Petitioners: Vivek Kantawala a/w Vishal Narichania, Amey Patil i/by M/s. Vivek Kantawala & Co., Advocates. For the Respondents: R1, Shashank Thatte a/w Ranjit Agashe, Vrushali Salvi, Krishnan Iyer, Advocates, R2 & R3, S.D. Rayrikar, AGP.



Judgment Text

1. The present Review Petition is filed by the Original Petitioners for review of Judgment dated 19th May, 2020 passed by this Court.

2. Heard Mr. Kantawala, learned counsel for the Petitioners at length, Mr. Thatte, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1, and Mr. Rayrikar, learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Perused record.

3. It is the contention of the Petitioners that-

(i) this Court after hearing the Petitioners reserved it for Judgment on 27th September, 2019 and pronounced it on 19th May, 2020;

(ii) that, this Court referred to and relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court (Shri. R.D. Dhanuka, J.) in the case of Dattatrey Shivaji Mane Vs. Lilabai Shivaji Mane & Ors., (Writ Petition No.10611 of 2018 dated 26th June, 2018) which deals with Sections 4 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, “the Senior Citizens Act”) and has expressed concurrence with the views expressed by the learned Single Judge in para No.29 of the present Judgment dated 19th May, 2020;

(iii) that, in the interregnum, another learned Single Judge of this Court (Shri S.C. Gupte, J. as he then was) in the case of Ranjana Rajkumar Makharia Vs. Mayadevi Subhkaran Makharia (Writ Petition (L) No.3509 of 2019 dated 24th February, 2020) pronounced a decision and by relying on the decision in the case of Mane (Supra) has further elaborated the provisions of Sections 4 and 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, which have not been considered by this Court in the present case while pronouncing the Judgment on 19th May, 2020.

4. At the outset, it is to be noted here that on 19th May, 2020, none of the counsel appearing before me pointed out that, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ranjana R. Makharia (Supra) has pronounced a decision also dealing with Sections 4 and 23 of the Senior Citizens Act. It is to be noted here that however, it makes no effect on the decision of the Judgment dated 19th May, 2020 passed in the present case.

5. Be that as it may, this Court in the present case has taken into consideration the elaborate interpretation and enunciation of the provisions and in particular Sections 4 and 23 of the Senior Citizens Act delivered by a learned Single Judge in the case of Mane (Supra) and has recorded categorical finding of concurrence and respectful agreement with the views expressed in the case of Mane (Supra).

6. It is to be noted here that, in the case of Ranjana R. Makharia (Supra) though another learned Single Judge of this Court in paragraph No.10 has adverted or referred to the facts in the case of Mane (Supra), but has not taken into consideration the various provisions of law interpreted and enunciated by the other learned Single Judge of this Court in the said case i.e. Mane (Supra), which was pronounced on 26th June 2018.

It is thus clear that, the decision in the case of Mane (Supra) was having binding effect while pronouncing the decision in the present case on 19th May, 2020.

7. It is to be further noted here that, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shweta Shetty Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ Petition (L) No.9374 of 2020 dated 25th November, 2021) in its Judgment has also referred to and relied upon the decision in the case of Mane (Supra) and in particular paragraph Nos.14, 22, 24, 25 and 31 thereof (which this Court has also relied upon in the present Case) and in paragraph No.23 of the said Judgment has entirely endorsed the views of the learned Single Judge in the case of Mane (Supra) and accepted them as their own. It

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

is thus crystal clear that, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shweta Shetty (Supra) has affirmed the views expressed by the learned Single Judge in the case of Mane (Supra). 8. In view thereof, I find that, there are no merits in the present Review Petition and is accordingly dismissed. Interim relief granted by Order dated 17th July, 2020 is vacated with immediate effect.
O R