Dismissed

Shivaji Ganpati Patil and Ors. v. Vithal Pandurang Kamble and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Nov 2007CAW/2829/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court clarified that a stay order in this writ petition does not suspend the proceedings in a pending revision application. The Joint Registrar is directed to hear the revision expeditiously despite the ongoing stay of the election programme.

What did the court decide?

The Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Dairy) is directed to hear and dispose of Revision Application No.21/07 expeditiously.

Shivaji Ganpati Patil and Ors. Vs Vithal Pandurang Kamble and Ors. — Bombay HC (2007) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2829 OF 2007
 IN

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO. 8093 OF 2007

¶5

 Shivaji Ganpati Patil and ors.... Petitioner

¶6

 versus

¶7

 Vithal Pandurang Kamble and ors...... Respondent.

¶8

 Shri P.D.Dalvi for the petitioner/applicant
 Mr. Patil i/b S.S.Patwardhan for the respondent
 Mr. R.M.Patne AGP for respondents 9 to 12.

¶9

 CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED; 2ND NOVEMBER, 2007

¶10

P.C.;

¶11

 1. By an order dated 30th October 2007, I have

¶12

 granted stay of the impugned order passed by the

¶13

 Respondent no.2 dated 16-10-2007 in Revision No.21/07.

¶14

 2. By the present application, the original
 respondent is seeking clarification to the effect that
 the stay order granted by this court does not
 postulate stay of the proceedings in Revision
 Application. The greivance of the applicant/original
 respondent is that the Revisional Authority is
 declining to hear the revision on account of the
 interim order passed by this court in the Writ
 Petition and thus, clarification is being sought. The
 learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner has no

¶15

 objection for hearing of the revision Application
 No.21/07 during pendency of the Writ Petition. In
 this view of the matter, I clarify that the Joint
 Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Dairy) at Worli,
 Mumbai shall proceed to hear and dispose of the
 Revision Application No.21/07 as expeditiously as
 possible. Both the learned advocates undertake to
 appear before the Revisional Authority on 5-11-2007.
 The learned AGP submits that it would be feasible for
 the Revisional Authority to decide the revision within
 a period of two weeks from today. Hence ordered
 accordingly.

¶16

 3. Needless to further clarify that the election
 programme continues to be stayed by virtue of the
 order dated 30-10-2007.

Shivaji Ganpati Patil and Ors. v. Vithal Pandurang Kamble and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivaji Ganpati Patil and Ors. v. Vithal Pandurang Kamble and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J. v. Constructions and Developers Vs Bombay Gow Rakshak Trust and Ors.

Dombivli Nagarik Co-Op.Housing Society Ltd. Vs J.R.Diwan

Sudhakar Devidas Deshpande Vs the Executive Engineer (Pwd) North Bombay Division and Ors.

Shivaji Ganpati Patil and Ors. Vs Vithal Pandurang Kamble and Ors.

Sameer Ramazan Nadaf Vs the State of Maharashtra

M/S. Lloyds Metals and Engineers Ltd. and Ors. Vs Ifci Ltd. and Anr.