Dismissed

Jayesh D. Jhaveri (Huf) v. the Secretary, Khusman Chs. Ltd.

Bombay HC7 Feb 2008WP/168/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed writ petitions filed by Jayesh D. Jhaveri (HUF) against a judgment dated 8 August 2006. The petitioner had earlier filed writ petitions challenging the same judgment, which were dismissed and later challenged via a review application without liberty to proceed. The court held the current petitions are not maintainable.

What the court decided

AI extract

Jayesh D. Jhaveri (Huf) Vs the Secretary… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

 ((-1-))

¶2

MST

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.167 OF 2008
 WITH
 WRIT PETITION (A.S.) NO.9387 OF 2007

¶5

 Jayesh D. Jhaveri (HUF) Petitioner
 versus

¶6

 The Secretary, Khusman Chs. Ltd. Respondent

¶7

 WITH
 WRIT PETITION NO.168 OF 2008

¶8

 WITH
 WRIT PETITION (A.S.) NO.9388 OF 2007

¶9

 Jayesh D. Jhaveri (HUF) Petitioner
 versus

¶10

 The Secretary, Khusman Chs. Ltd. Respondent

¶11

 Mr.U.R.Mankapure for petitioner.

¶12

 I.R.Ladiwala for respondent no.4.

¶13

 R.J.Mane, AGP for respondents 1 and 3.

¶14

 CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

¶15

 DATE : 07th February 2008

¶16

 PC :

¶17

 1. Heard counsel for the parties. Counsel

¶18

 appearing for the respondent has raised
 preliminary objection regarding entertaining
 these writ petitions after dismissal of Writ
 Petition Nos.6863 of 2007 and 6857 of 2007 filed

¶19

 ((-2-))

¶20

MST

¶21

 by the petitioner before this Court questioning
 the appropriateness of the order passed by the
 Appellate Court in Review Application Nos.14/2006
 and 15/2006 respectively dated 11th September
 2006.

¶22

 2. It is not in dispute that the said review
 application was filed by the petitioner against
 the judgement and order passed by the Appellate
 Court dated 8th August 2006 and on Appeal Nos.78
 of 2006 and 79 of 2006 which decisions have now
 been made subject matter of present writ
 petitions. I find force in the submission
 canvassed on behalf of the respondent that in

¶23

 view of dismissal of the earlier writ petitions
 filed by the petitioner against the order passed
 on review, though, the petitioner cannot be
 permitted to urge the same grounds which were
 pressed into service for consideration of the
 review application and are overlapping to decide
 the correctness of the main judgement, which is
 now assailed in the present writ petition dated
 8th August 2006. It is not in dispute that while
 dismissing the earlier writ petitions filed by
 the petitioner, the petitioner did not avail of
 any liberty from this Court to file further writ
 petition challenging the main judgement. The

¶24

 ((-3-))

¶25

MST

¶26

 argument of the petitioner that the review
 application raises only two specific grounds and
 not the merits of the contentions available to
 challenge the decision dated 8th August 2006,
 will have to be stated only to be rejected. If
 certain grounds were available to the petitioner
 to be raised in the review application which are
 similar to the grounds while challenging the
 order dated 8th August 2006 and if the petitioner
 has failed to raise the grounds, the petitioner
 cannot be permitted to reagitate those grounds by
 way of separate writ petitions in the guise of
 having challenged only the main order dated 8th
 August 2006 in the present petition. As
 aforesaid, in absence of any liberty given to the
 petitioner leaving all contentions available to
 the petitioner open to be agitated by way of
 fresh writ petition, the question of entertain
 present writ petitions does not arise. Hence,
 these writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on
 this ground alone. Ordered accordingly.

¶27

 (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)

Jayesh D. Jhaveri (Huf) v. the Secretary, Khusman Chs. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Jayesh D. Jhaveri (Huf) v. the Secretary, Khusman Chs. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bgm Industrial Services Vs the Official Liquidator, High Court Bombay

Bhavana Ashit Desai Vs --

Ashit Kantilal Desai Vs -

Janardan Jyotiram Jadhav Vs Vishnu Purshottam Sohoni (Decd.)by Lrs.

Gaintech Enterprises Vs Smzs Chemicals Ltd.

Shreeram Choudhary Vs the O. L.,High Court, Bombay,Liquidator of M/S. Silkon Silk Mills (Exports) Ltd.