Bombay High Court · 2025-12-03
NIKET MEHTA vs LILAVATI KIRTILAL MEHTA MEDICAL TRUST, THROUGH CHARU MEHTA
- Citation / case number
- IA/3243/2025
- Court
- Bombay High Court
- Petitioner
- NIKET MEHTA
- Respondent
- LILAVATI KIRTILAL MEHTA MEDICAL TRUST, THROUGH CHARU MEHTA
Judgment text excerpt
IA.3243.2025.doc Ajay IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3243 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4005 OF 2025 IN SUIT NO. 23 OF 2025 Niket Mehta Applicant / .. Defendant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN: Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, Through its Trustee Mrs. Charu Mehta and Ors. .. Plaintiffs Versus Niket Mehta .. Defendant .................... Mr. Atul Damle, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Dakshesh Vyas, Mr. Abhishek Prabhu, Ms. Jyoti Ghag, Mr. Shailesh and Ms. Ankit Singhal, Advocates i/by Dua Associates for Plaintiffs. Mr. Pankaj Sawant, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Aloukik R. Pai, Mr. Saharsh Sakhare and Ms. Priyanka Rammurthy, Advocates i/by Aloukik Rajendra Pai for Defendant. ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : DECEMBER 03, 2025. ORAL JUDGEMENT: 1. Heard Mr. Damle, learned Senior Advocate for Plaintiffs and Mr. Sawant, learned Senior Advocate for Defendant. 2. This Application is filed by Defendant for rejection of the Suit plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’)on the ground that suit is barred under Section 80 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short ‘MPT Act’) for Plaintiffs having failed to comply with the statutory and mandatory provisions of Section 50 and 51 thereof before institution of the Suit 1 of 24 IA.3243.2025.doc proceedings. Parties are referred to as Plaintiffs and Defendant for convenience. 3. Briefly stated, Plaintiff No.1 is a Public Trust amenable to the provisions of the MPT Act. Plaintiff Nos.2, 3 and 4 are the present Trustees of Plaintiff No.1 - Trust. Suit is filed on 19.12.2024 for recovery of Rs.17,20,88,896/- from Defendant who according to Plaintiffs’ own case as pleaded in the Suit plaint was