Disposed

P.O.Solanki v. Sheela Bhatt and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Mar 2006NMS/3275/1990

Download

Case brief

from the order text

What is this about?

HIGH

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3275 OF 1990

¶4

IN

¶5

 SUIT NO.3639 OF 1990

¶6

 Purshottam Odhavji Solanki .. Plaintiff.
 V/s.
 Sheela Bhatt, Editor, Abhiyan
 & Others .. Defendants.

¶7

 Ms.Pradnya Matkar i/b. R.M. Parekh for the
 plaintiff.

¶8

 CORAM : R.M. LODHA &
 J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.

¶9

 DATED : 7TH MARCH, 2006.
P.C. :

¶10

 Ms.Pradnya Matkar, advocate appears for

¶11

 Mr.R.M. Parekh, advocate for the plaintiff and

¶12

 submits that Mr.R.M. Parekh has sought his discharge
 in the matter by lodging Chamber Summons No.331 of
 2006. She submits that she has no instructions in
 the matter.

P.O.Solanki Vs Sheela Bhatt and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2006)

¶13

 2. Purshottam Odhavji Solanki (Plaintiff) filed
 a suit for damages in the sum of Rs.25,00,000/-
 against the Editor, Special Correspondent, Publishers
 and Printers of the magazine Abhiyaan for having
 published a defamatory article against him. In the
 suit, the plaintiff took out a notice of motion that
 was registered as Notice of Motion No.3275 of 1990.
 On 3rd December, 1990, the learned Motion Judge
 granted ad-interim order in terms of prayer (a), as
 the defendant Nos.1 to 5 could not justify the

¶21

 In the light of observations of the
 Division Bench contained in order dt.20-12-90
 an Appeal Lodg.No.1644/90 and having regard
 to the question involved it appears to me
 that the matter can be move advantageously
 heard by the Division Bench. I accordingly
 report the matter to the learned Chief
 Justice under Rule 28 of the (O.S.) rules of
 this court.

¶28

 Ad-interim relief staying the
 operation and implementation of the order
 under appeal subject to the condition that
 any intended publication in the journal in
 question in respect of the Plaintiff will be
 first placed for the perusal of the Court and
 the publication will be made only if the

¶32

 5. As regards the appeal, the Division Bench
 held that the appeal does not survive in view of the
 order passed in the notice of motion. The appeal was
 disposed of on 6th March, 1991 by the following
 order :

¶36

 6. It appears that the notice of motion remained
 pending and it came up for hearing before the learned
 Motion Judge on 26th August, 2005. Though none was
 present, the learned Motion Judge passed the
 following order :

¶39

 . The order passed at ad-interim stage
 was carried in appeal before the Division
 Bench in Appeal Lodging No.1644 of 1990 and
 the Division Bench by its order dated
 28.12.1990 was of the opinion that appeal
 raises an important issue and therefore
 should be disposed of by learned Single Judge
 in the pending notice of motion. By
 subsequent order passed by the learned Single
 Judge on 7.2.1991, the motion was to be heard
 by the Division Bench. However, no further
 hearing has taken place. In the aforesaid

¶41

 circumstances, I direct the office to place
 the matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice
 along with the said orders dated 28.12.1990
 and 7.2.1991 for appropriate direct. Office
 states that record and proceedings is not
 available. Mr.Shroff advocate for the
 defendants assures that he will file the copy
 of the record within a period of one week
 from today. Office is directed to obtain
 necessary directions from the Hon’ble the
 Chief Justice. Mr.Shroff also states that he
 desires to take discharge from the matter.
 He can do so in accordance with law."

¶43

 7. As already indicated above in so far as the
 appeal is concerned, that came to be dismissed by the
 Division Bench on 6th March, 1991. As regards the
 order passed by the Division Bench on the notice of
 motion on 6th March, 1991, the same has to be
 discharged. None appears for the defendants and the
 advocate appearing for the plaintiff states that
 Mr.R.M. Parekh, advocate on record for the plaintiff
 has sought his discharge as he has not received any
 instructions from the plaintiffs.

P.O.Solanki v. Sheela Bhatt and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Maniar International Ltd. Vs Enforcement Committee and 7 Ors.

M/S. Bermaco Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax City-X, Mumbai

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Vs M/S. Aarti Industries Ltd.

atlas copeo (india) limited Vs v.s. samuel assistant commissioner of income-tax,range 4 (1),mum.

P.O.Solanki v. Sheela Bhatt and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Maniar International Ltd. Vs Enforcement Committee and 7 Ors.

M/S. Bermaco Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax City-X, Mumbai

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Vs M/S. Aarti Industries Ltd.

atlas copeo (india) limited Vs v.s. samuel assistant commissioner of income-tax,range 4 (1),mum.

A compact analysis

m/s adani exports limited Vs union of india and 2 Ors.

M/S Shah Diagnostic Institute. Vs Union of India and Ors.