The court allowed a Notice of Motion, making it absolute in terms of a previous Division Bench order, without addressing substantive legal issues or providing a detailed rationale.
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 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 190 OF 2007 IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 1910 OF 2005
Yeshwant Surve and others
... Petitioners
versus
Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and others ...Respondents
Mr. C.U. Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mrs. Aruna K.Savla, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in support.
Mr. G.S. Kulkarni, instructed by Mr. A.H. Joshi, for the petitioners to show cause.
CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE: JUNE 19, 2007 .
P.C.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties,
we allow this Notice of Motion in terms of pragraph 7 of the order of the Division Bench dated 9th March, 2007, passed in C.A. No. 3130 of
2006 in A.S. Writ Petition No. 8452 of 2004. Notice of Motion is made
absolute in that terms.
CHIEF JUSTICE
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
Yeshwant Surve and others
Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and others
Savant Kumar
S.C. Dharmadikari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
