Disposed

Parineeta Chaudhari v. Mohammed Hussain a. Furniturewalla

Bombay HC7 Aug 2008CAW/1594/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Civil Application seeking recall of an order imposing a pre-deposit condition. The court held the pre-condition would not be treated as agreed to, while noting the time limit was. The writ petition requires regular court hearing, rendering further orders unnecessary regarding the deposit, and stay was refused.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 20.06.2008 regarding pre-deposit condition is not to be treated as agreed to; time limit agreed. No further orders on deposit needed. Stay refused.

Parineeta Chaudhari Vs Mohammed Hussain a… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL APPLCIATION NO. 1594 OF 2008
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2276 OF 2008

¶4

Miss. Parineta Chaudhari & Ors...Petitioners
(Orig.Applicants)
V/s

¶5

Mohammed Hussain A. Furniturewalla ..Respondent
(Orig. Opponent)

¶6

Mr. Mubin Solkar for the applicants

¶7

Mr.G.S.Godbole i/b Mr. A.M. Kulkarni for repsondent

¶8

CORAM :A.A. SAYED, J.

¶9

DATE : 7TH AUGUST, 2008

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1.The learned Counsel Mr. Mubin Solkar states
that Senior Counsel Mr. Choudhari was unable to come
to Mumbai today to argue the matter as he was
required to go to Gwalior for some other Court
matter. Learned Counsel for respondent states that
the matter was adjourned twice and dates as per
convenience of the learned Sr. Counsel was given by
the Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioners
states that he is ready to argue the matter. The
Civil Application is accordingly heard.

¶12

:2:

¶13

2.This Civil Application is taken out for the

¶14

following reliefs:-

¶15

"(a) To recall the order dated 20.6.2008
passed by this Hon’ble Court in Civil
Application No. 1398/2008 in Writ Petition
No. 2276/2008 in so far as it relates to the
recording of the Petitioners’ or their
Counsel’s consent/agreement in so far as it
relates to the question of pre-deposit as a
pre-condition for hearing the Petition on the
question of admission.

¶16

(b) To hear the said Writ Petition for
admission or pass an appropriate order on the
question of the correctness/justification of
the directions of this Court directing the
petitioners to pre-deposit a fixed sum as a
condition precedent for hearing the Petition
on the question of admission.

¶17

(c) to grant such other reliefs as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper."

¶18

3.The Civil Application can be disposed of by
observing that ’pre-condition’ recorded in para 2 of
the order dated 20-06-2008 will not be treated as
having been agreed to. Rest of the order dated
20-06-2008 to stand. It may be mentioned that the
time within which the amount was to be deposited was
also agreed to by the petitioners.

¶19

4.In so far as the prayer clause (b) of the

¶20

:3:

¶21

Civil Application is concerned, the Writ Petition
will have to be heard for admission by regular Court
and since the order of deposit was by consent no
further orders are necessary.

¶22

5.With the above observations the Civil

¶23

Application stands disposed of.

¶24

6.The learned Counsel for the applicant seeks
stay of this order. In my view, there is no question
of grant of any stay of this order, looking to the
nature of reliefs sought. Hence stay is refused.

Parineeta Chaudhari v. Mohammed Hussain a. Furniturewalla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parineeta Chaudhari v. Mohammed Hussain a. Furniturewalla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reliance Power Limited Vs the Statesman Limited and 2 Ors.

Bennett , Coleman and Company Limited Vs Diligent Media Corporation Limited

Munakkardevi R. Mishra Vs Subhash Jitendraprasad Shahi and Ors.

Kamleshsingh Harnamsingh Chowhan Vs Jayalaxmi Kantilal

ravindra g. patil Vs naesh b. wagh and Anr.

Dow Agro Sciences and Anr. Vs M/S. Laxmi Agro Chemicals