The High Court rejected the application for interim relief in a writ petition. The court observed that prior to this application, the writ petition was not dismissed in default despite a notation of counsel's appearance for the petitioners on the date the interim relief was sought.
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 APPELLATE SIDE
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1426 OF 2005
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.378 OF 2004
Madhukar Uttamrao Suryawanshi & ors.
Applicants
vs.
The State of Maharashtra & ors.
Respondents
Mr.A.V.Anturkar i/b.Mr.S.P.Pawal for the applicants.
Mr.V.P.Sawant for the respondents 2 and 3.
CORAM : R. M. LODHA & J.P. DEVADHAR,JJ .
DATED : 17th March, 2006
P.C.
Heard Mr.A.V.Anturkar, the learned counsel for the
applicants.
| 2. | On 28 |
th April, |
200 |
4 while |
issuing | the | rule, |
we |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rejected | prayer | for inte |
rim | relief. | What | is |
sought | to |
| be | contended | by Mr.A |
.V.Antu | rkar, | the l |
earned | counsel | for |
| the | applicants, | is that |
on |
that |
day | nobody | appeared | for |
| the | petitioners | and | as | in | the | connec | ted | matters |
| Mr.M.S. | Karnik, a |
dvocate | appea | red, | his | presence | was | |
| shown. | He | would | further | submit |
that | if | the | complete |
facts were brought to the notice of this Court on that
day, the interim relief could not have been rejected.
2
| 3. | We are not persuaded by |
the su |
bmission | of |
the |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| learned | counsel for the petitioners. |
If | no | body | appeared |
| for | the petitioners on 28th |
April, 2 |
004, | the | writ |
| petition | would have been dismissed |
in d |
efault. | However, | |
| we | find from the order dated 2 |
8th April, |
2004 | that | the |
| name | of Mr.M.S.Karnik, advocate ha |
s been |
shown | for | the |
| petitioners | and rule was issued. |
Eve | n o |
therwise, | since |
| in | the connected matters, while |
issuing |
rule | praye | r for |
| interim | relief is rejected, we |
hardly |
find | any | |
| justifiable case of the |
ground for passing a different order in the present petitioners. |
(R.M. LODHA,J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR,J.)
Madhukar Uttamrao Suryawanshi & ors.
The State of Maharashtra & ors.
R. M. Lodha
J. P. Devadhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
