Dismissed

Daryus Panthakey v. 1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 14 Ors.

Bombay HC12 Dec 2007WP/75/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition involving fraud, holding it is covered by an existing Full Bench judgment. The court directed the petitioner to approach the High Power Committee for interim relief within four weeks without issuing directions on interim orders.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to approach the High Power Committee within four weeks for interim orders; no directions issued on interim reliefs.

Daryus Panthakey Vs 1. Municipal Corporation of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 75 OF 2006

Daryus S. Panthakey

...Petitioner

versus

Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and others ...Respondents

¶9

Mr. J.B. Chinoy, instructed by Mr.Vinod Thaker, for the petitioner. Mr. K.K. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, with Mrs. P.A. Purandare for the BMC.

¶10

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & J.P. DEVADHAR, J. DATE: DECEMBER 12, 2007 .

¶11

P.C.

¶12

According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court dated 1^st November, 2007, in the case of Tulsiwadi Navnirman Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. and another vs.

¶13

State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 1326 of 2007 and others). However, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the writ would be maintainable before this Court particularly because

¶14

he has taken up the plea of fraud and the matter was remanded by the Supreme Court.

¶15

We are unable to find any merit in this contention as, when the matter was remanded by the Supreme Court to this Court, the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court was not in existence. The Full Bench judgment is wide enough to cover all cases including that of fraud. In fact, where fraud is pleaded, it will be more appropriate that such a petition is heard by the High Power Committee constituted by the Government as such finding of facts can hardly be recorded by the Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶16

The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. Liberty to the petitioner to approach the Committee within four weeks from today and to make appropriate application praying for interim orders as well. We make it clear that we are not issuing any directions in relation to grant of interim reliefs.

¶17

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶18

J.P. DEVADHAR, J.

Daryus Panthakey v. 1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 14 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daryus Panthakey v. 1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 14 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Padma N.Kokarne (M/S.Pooja Bar and Rest.) Vs the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai and Anr.

The Jineshwar Darshan Chs Ltd. Vs Mun.Corpn.of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Thrity Firoz Master Vs the Custodian of Enemy Property and Ors.

Abu Baker K.V. Mohammed and Ors. Vs the Slum Rehablitation Authority

T. Augustine George Vs the Admiral Superintendent

Navaz Hafiz Khan and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.