Allowed

Javahar Nanchand Shah v. Dattu Gundu Parit

Bombay HC8 Jun 2006CAW/1077/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this brief order, the court condensed a delay of 55 days in filing a review application accepted the applicant's reasons as sufficient and disposed of the application by allowing it without engaging in detailed reasoning. A separate review application was subsequently dismissed on merits.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 55 days in filing a review application is condoned; application stands disposed of.

Javahar Nanchand Shah Vs Dattu Gundu Parit — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1077 OF 2006

¶2

 -------------------------------------------------------
 Office Notes, Office
 Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s orders
 appearances, Court’s orders
 or directions and
 Registrar’s orders
 -------------------------------------------------------
 Mr.P.R.Arjunwadkar for the
 applicant.
 Mr.S.V.Sadavarte for the
 respondent.

¶3

Coram : R.S.Mohite,J
 Date : 8.6.2006.
 PC
 1. This is an application for
 condonation of delay of 55 days
 in filing the review
 application. Heard both sides.
 For the reasons which are
 mentioned in the application and
 which are accepted, delay is
 condoned. Application stands
 disposed of.

¶4

(R.S.Mohite,J)

¶5

REVIEW APPLICATION 4692/2006

¶6

 1. This is a review application
 against my judgment and order

¶7

 : 2 :

¶8

`dated 1.12.2005. Three points`
`are raised. First point sought`
`to be urged is surrender of`
`tenancy was never challenged and`
`hence must be held to be final.`
`I already held in my judgment`
`that the said surrender was`
`non-est in the eyes of law. The`
`2nd point is that tenancy was`
`joint and surrender was not`
`challenged by the other tenant.`
`Once it is held that the`
`surrender is non-est, this point`
`does not arise. Lastly it was`
`urged that the petitioner has`
`filed proceedings under Section`
`17-B of the Bombay Tenancy Act`
`and has withdrawn the`
`proceedings, therefore,`
`principles of resjudicata was`
`applied. There is no substance`
`in this point. Application is`
`therefore, rejected.`

¶9

(R.S.Mohite,J)

Javahar Nanchand Shah v. Dattu Gundu Parit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Javahar Nanchand Shah v. Dattu Gundu Parit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravish Rafiq Kharbe Vs the S.E.M. Bombay and Another.

Hasmukhalal v. Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bena Dinesh Kanabar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Raju Rukka Shetty and Anr. . Vs the State of Maharashtra .

Javahar Nanchand Shah Vs Dattu Gundu Parit

Santosh Vilas Pandalage Vs the State of Maharashtra