Dismissed

Ramesh K.Thakkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Sept 2004WP/2966/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a recovery certificate, the Bombay High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the statutory remedy of revision was still available and the petitioner was not justified in directly approaching the Court due to delay.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to approach the authority via available statutory remedies.

Ramesh K.Thakkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2004)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

¶2

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO. 2966 OF 2004

¶4

 Ramesh K. Thakkar ... Petitioner

¶5

 versus

¶6

 State of Maharashtra and ors. ... Respondents

¶7

 Mr. E.B. Dixit with Mr. V.K. Dubey, for the

¶8

 Petitioner.

¶9

 Mr. C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P., for the Respondents.

¶10

 CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.

¶11

 3rd September 2004

¶12

 P.C.:

¶13

 . It is not in dispute that the Petitioner

¶14

 has not questioned the recovery certificate,
 which is impugned in this writ petition dated
 December 12, 2003, by filing revision
 application, which is statutory remedy available
 to the Petitioner. In this backdrop, I see no
 reason to exercise writ jurisdiction. The
 Petitioner may take recourse to remedy of
 revision application, if so advised.

¶15

 . During the course of arguments, Counsel
 for the Petitioner submits that since the
 revision would have been time barred, the
 Petitioner has directly approached this Court.
 That argument cannot be countenanced. If the
 revision application was time barred, the
 Petitioner could have filed the same along with
 application for condonation of delay in filing
 the revision showing sufficient cause for the
 delay. Merely because there was delay in filing
 revision cannot be the basis for directly moving
 this Court in writ jurisdiction. Hence,
 dismissed, with liberty to the Petitioner to take
 recourse to remedy as may be available and
 permissible by law.

¶16

 . Parties to act on the authenticated copy
 of this order.

¶17

 (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.)

Ramesh K.Thakkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh K.Thakkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Aba Krishna Lokare and Others Vs Shri Gopal Kashinath Vategaonkar

Gopal Kashinath Wategoankar Vs Sitaram Yeshu Yadav Decd. Th.L.H. and Ors.

Trimbak Chandiprasad Mishra Vs the Div.Joint Registrar, Co-Op.Societies and Ors.

Vasant Jobanputra Vs the Bank of India Staff,Sampadaco.Op.Hsg.So.LTDandOR

Daya Rijhumal Dawra and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S.Bhadani Associates Vs Kamlini Dharmaraj Ashar and Anr.