The High Court of Bombay Crim.A.J. relied on an order where a senior counsel undertook to implement a notice under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act within four weeks. Rejecting the application to recall the statement or seek clarification as the court had not issued a demolition direction.
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 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.24 OF 2007
IN
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3332 OF 2005
Ms Savitri B. Nagpal and ors.
...Applicants
vs.
Kishor B. Nagpal & Ors....Respondents
Mr.Sunil Mogre with Mr.Mukesh Chhedda for the Applicants
Ms Rajeshri Gadavi, A.P.P. for State
Mr.P.M.Mody with Mr.R.R.Bhosale i/b M/s.N.C.Dalal & Co. for
the Respondents.
CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JANUARY 16,2006.
P.C.:
1. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant. The submission
made by the learned Counsel for the Applicant is that the
statement of the learned Senior Counsel for the first
Respondent in Criminal Application No.3332 of 2005 recorded in
order dated 20th December 2006 is being misinterpreted by the
trial court while dealing with a suit filed by the Applicant.
A prayer in this Application is for seeking clarification that
the statement recorded in the said order will not affect the
merits of the suit filed by the Applicants. The prayer is
also made for recalling the statement/undertaking which is
recorded in the order dated 20th December 2006.
2. The order dated 20th December 2006 reads thus :
"1)Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants
and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
-2-
Respondent No.1.
2)
Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the
1st Respondent, the learned Senior Counsel Shri
K.K.Singhvi states that if there is no restraint order
passed by any Court of law, the notice dated 6th January
2005 under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation Act, 1888 will be implemented within a period
of four weeks from today.
3)S.O. till 25th January 2007."
3. It is obvious that this Court has not passed any
direction. In the aforesaid order, the statement made by the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first Respondent has
been recorded. On the Application made by the applicants, the
voluntary statement of the said Respondent recorded in the
order cannot be recalled. As this Court has not passed any
order directing demolition, it is not necessary to issue
clarification. There is no merit in the Application and the
same is rejected.
4. Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.
-3-
JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a voluntary statement/undertaking recorded by the court can be recalled upon application.
Whether clarification is required when the court has not passed a direction to demolish.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Savitri B. Nagpal
Kishor B. Nagpal
A.S. OKA, J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court