This single-paragraph order notices the petitioner's application for extension of time. The court allowed the motion based on the terms of the petitioner's affidavit. No hearing was held on merits.
Motion allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) of the affidavit in support.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.284 OF 2005
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2718 of 2002
Shaikh Riyasat Ali .. Petitioner
versus
Presiding Officer, CGIT & Anr. .. Respondents
Mr.I.A. Saiyed for the petitioner
None for the respondents.
CORAM : D.G. KARNIK,J.
DATED : 20th July 2005.
P.C.:
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
None present for the respondent no.2 - the contesting
respondent, though served. Affidavit of service is
kept on record.
2. For the reasons mentioned in paragraph no.1
of the affidavit in support, the motion is allowed in
terms of prayer clause (a).
D.G. KARNIK, J
Shaikh Riyasat Ali
Presiding Officer, CGIT
D.G. KARNIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court