The High Court of Bombay rejected the Applicant's claim for interim relief, noting its non-grant during the suit's pendency, while clarifying Respondents' actions regarding suit structure are subject to the First Appeal outcome.
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.
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET CIVIL APPLICATION NO.834 OF 2005 IN
FIRSTAPPEAL NO.60 OF 2006
.............................................................
Office Notes,Office
memorandum of Coram,
appearances,Court’s
orders or directions
& Registrar’s orders.
Court’s or
Judge’s orders
.............................................................
Ms V.S.Dighe for the Applicant
Mr.J.J.Xavier for Respondent Nos.1 & 2
Mr.Rajkumar R. Mishra for R.Nos.3 to 5
CORAM: A.S.OKA, J.
DATED: MARCH 24, 2006.
P.C.:
1. Heard Advocate for the parties. It is
an admitted position that during the
pendency of the suit in the City Civil
Court, no interim relief was granted in
favour of the Applicant. Hence, the
Applicant is not entitled to interim
relief.
2. However, it is made clear that all
actions which may be taken by the
Respondents in respect of the suit
structure will be subject to the final
outcome of the First Appeal.
-2-
Judge.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Applicant is entitled to interim relief given that none was granted during the pendency of the underlying suit.
Applicant
Respondent Nos.1 & 2
Respondent Nos.3 to 5
A.S.Oka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court