Dismissed

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. J.B. Singh and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Mar 2006CAW/548/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition and Civil Applications filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. The court refused to condone the substantial delay in the Civil Application and held the Writ Petition was infructuous as the impugned order had already become final.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of Civil Applications with no case made out for condonation of delay; Writ Petition dismissed as infructuous.

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

 -= : 1 : =-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.547 OF 2006
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.548 OF 2006
IN

¶5

WRIT PETITON NO.4012 OF 1991

¶6

 The Municipal Corporation of
 Greater Bombay ..Petitioner.

¶7

 V/s.

¶8

 Jangbahadur Singh Gokaran Singh & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶9

 Mrs.R.N.More i/b.Crawford Bayley & Co. for petitioner.
 Ms.Sangita Lidkar i/b. Neeta Karni for respondents.

¶10

CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J.
DATED : 24TH MARCH, 2006.

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶13

 This petition came to be dismissed against the
 respondent No.1 (contesting respondent) by the order of
 the Additional Registered dated 10/10/1996. Civil
 application No.4360 of 1997 for setting aside the above
 order also came to be dismissed for want of prosecution
 vide order dated 10/11/20003. The impugned order,
 therefore, became final against the petitioner
 Corporation.

¶14

 2. Petitioner - Corporation has now moved Civil

¶15

 -= : 2 : =-

¶16

 Application No.547 of 2006 and another Civil Application
 No.548 of 2006 praying for setting aside the order dated
 10/10/1996 and seeking condonation of delay in moving
 the Civil Application No.547 of 2006.

¶17

 3. C.A. No.547 of 2006 appears to have been
 filed after 9 years and 91 days. No ground is made out
 for condonation of delay. Needless to mention that
 earlier application for similar relief came to be
 dismissed for want of prosecution. In the application
 itself the petitioner-Corporation have stated that Writ
 Petition has become infructuous and it be accordingly
 disposed of.

¶18

 4. The learned counsel appearing for the
 Municipal-Corporation also reiterated the said
 submission. In this view of the matter, the Civil
 Applications are disposed of as no case is made out to
 grant to grant those applications.

¶19

 5. The Writ Petition is also stands dismissed in

¶20

 view of dismissal of the petition against the contesting
 respondent way back in the year 1996. As on date, the
 petition does not survive and the same is dismissed
 accordingly with no order as to costs.

¶21

 6. The undertaking given by the petitioner stands

¶22

 -= : 3 : =-

¶23

 cancelled.

¶24

 **********

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. J.B. Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. J.B. Singh 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

Konkan Vana Shramik Sangh Vs Director/Sanchalak Social Forestry and Ors.

Yadunath Mahadeo Patil and Ors. Vs City and Industrial Development Corporation (Maharashtra) Ltd. and Ors.

M/S. Century Enka Ltd. Vs Presiding OFFICER,1ST Labour Court and Anr.

The Chairman-Shri Mahaveer Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs the Appelate Authority-Under the Payment of Gratuity ACT,1972, Pune and Ors.

M/S.Steelite Engineering Ltd. Vs Gupteshwar Rama Singh

Steelite Engineering Corporation Vs Bandu Damodar Mahadik and Anr.