JANKI VASHDEO BHOJWANI AND ANR. versus INDUSIND BANK LTD. AND ORS.

JANKI VASHDEO BHOJWANI AND ANR. versus INDUSIND BANK LTD. AND ORS.

Appellants failed to discharge burden of establishing co-ownership and contribution from independent income as they did not themselves depose and evidence produced did not prove contribution from independent income; power of attorney holder cannot substitute for principal in deposing to facts within principal's...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani; Appellant: Mohini Laxmikant Bhojwani; Respondent: IndusInd Bank Ltd.; Respondent: Laxmikant Rewachand Bhojwani; Respondent: Sanjay Laxmikant Bhojwani; Respondent: Romy Laxmikant Bhojwani; Respondent: Vashdeo Rewchand Bhojwani; Respondent: Bhojwani Hotels Pvt. Ltd.; Respondent: Hotel Amir Pvt. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appeal From Bombay High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Power of Attorney, Burden of Proof, Foreign Exchange (immunity) Scheme 1991, Attachment and Co Ownership, Clean Hands Doctrine
Civil Procedure Property Law Banking Law Power of Attorney Burden of Proof Foreign Exchange (immunity) Scheme 1991 Attachment and Co Ownership Clean Hands Doctrine

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani

Appellant

Mohini Laxmikant Bhojwani

Appellant

IndusInd Bank Ltd.

Respondent

Laxmikant Rewachand Bhojwani

Respondent

Sanjay Laxmikant Bhojwani

Respondent

Romy Laxmikant Bhojwani

Respondent

Vashdeo Rewchand Bhojwani

Respondent

Bhojwani Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Hotel Amir Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appeal From Bombay High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a power of attorney holder can depose in place and instead of the principal.
  2. 2 Whether appellants proved co-ownership and contribution towards purchase from independent income.
  3. 3 Effect of immunity under Foreign Exchange (Immunity) Scheme, 1991 regarding disclosure of source.

Ratio Decidendi

Appellants failed to discharge burden of establishing co-ownership and contribution from independent income as they did not themselves depose and evidence produced did not prove contribution from independent income; power of attorney holder cannot substitute for principal in deposing to facts within principal's personal knowledge.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Decree stands; property may be sold in execution as per prior proceedings.