Othmar Britschgi and Anr. v. ..
Case brief
What is this about?
CIVIL NOTICE. Court directed advocates appearing in 80 matters to produce copies of bonds with the Court on the next date after the court remarked that bonds were not filed despite undertaking. No substantive order on merits recorded.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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
ON THE BOARD DT.22ND JULY 2010 FROM SERIAL NO. 18 TO 88 FROM F.A.P.NO.10 OF 2008 TO F.A.P.NO.15 OF 2010
______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s Orders appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Prothonotary’s orders
Mr.Rakesh Kapoor/ Ms.Lalita Jayaraj/ Mr.Iyengar/ Mr.Amit Mehta i/by Mahimtura & Co for the petitioner. Mr.O. Hareendran, representative of ICSW.
CORAM : R.S.MOHITE, J. DATE : 22nd JULY 2010.
P.C.:
. In the above matters the office has remarked that the bonds have not been filed by the petitioners in spite of an undertaking being given to the Court. It is seen that in all these matters there are only three different advocates who appear. All three advocates are present before me today. They categorically assert that the bonds are filed by their client. Since advocates state that in each case a copy of the bond is kept with RIPA, they are directed to produce their copy of the bond on the next date. Stand over to one week.
(R.S.MOHITE, J)
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Petitioner
- respondent
Representative of ICSW
Coram
R.S. MOHITE
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court