This short order dismisses a writ petition based on the premise that the controversy is identical to previously decided cases, thereby upholding the Division Bench's prior judgment without detailed reasoning.
Writ petition dismissed; interim order continued for eight weeks; parties to bear their own costs.
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
WRIT PETITION NO. 1843 OF 1994
Farrokh E.D.Mehta & Anr.... ... Petitioners.
Versus
Bombay Housing Area Development
Board and others..... .... Respondents.
Mr. B.M.Sghroff with Ms.Bindu Nair i/by M/s.Little
& Co., for the Petitioners.
None for the Respondents.
CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. &
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATED : 13TH JUNE, 2007.
P.C.:
It cannot be disputed that the controversy
involved in this petition is the same on facts and law
as was in the case of Writ Petition Nos. 3004 of
1988, 1582 of 1990 and 1788 of 1990 which were decided
by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated
28th January, 2002. For the reasons stated in the
said Judgment, with which we respectfully agree, we
dismiss this writ petition.
2. However, we direct the parties to bear their own
-: 2 :-
costs.
3. Interim order would continue for a period of eight
weeks from today.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Writ Petition Nos. 3004 of 1988, 1582 of 1990 and 1788 of 1990Referred¶11
Farrokh E.D. Mehta & Anr.
Bombay Housing Area Development Board and others
SWATANTER KUMAR
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court