Remanded

Gustad Rashid Irani v. P.L.Salve and 9 Ors.

Bombay HC10 Aug 2009APP/266/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order dated 28.9.2007 passed by the Maharashtra Slum Areas Tribunal in Appeal no.15 of 2006 and remanded the matter for de novo consideration. The appeal and writ petition were disposed of, with the Tribunal directed to decide expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 28.9.2007 set aside; Appeal remitted to Tribunal for de novo consideration within six months; Interim order continued.

Gustad Rashid Irani Vs P.L.Salve and 9 Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

APPEAL NO.266 OF 2008

¶5

IN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.583 OF 2008

¶7

Mr.Gustad Rashid Irani.

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

vs.

¶10

1.P.L.Salve, Dy.Collector
(Encroachment-Removal) & ors.

¶11

...Respondents.

¶12

Mr.V.A.Thorat, Sr.Advocate i/b. D.S.Mhaispurkar, for
Appellant.

¶13

Mr.Milind More, AGP for Respondents-State.

¶14

AND

¶15

WRIT PETITION NO.2150 OF 2008

¶16

and
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.163 of 2009

¶17

Mr.Aspandier Rashid Irani.

¶18

...Petitioner.

¶19

vs.

¶20

1.P.L.Salve, Dy.Collector
(Encroachment-Removal) & ors.

¶21

...Respondents.

¶22

¶23

Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Sr.Advocate i/b. D.S.Mhaispurkar, for
Petitioner.

¶24

Mr.Milind More, AGP for Respondents 1 & 2.

¶25

Mr.Sanjay Jain with Brijesh Upadhyay i/b. Purnand &
Co. for applicant in Chamber Summons no.163/09.

¶26

CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH &
 R.G.KETKAR, JJ.

¶27

DATED: 10th August,2009.

¶28

P.C.:-

¶29

These proceedings arrive out of the same
order viz. Order dated 28.9.2007 passed in Appeal
no.15 of 2006 by the Maharashtra Slum Areas (I.C. &
R.) Tribunal. So far as the controversy involved in

¶30

these proceedings is concerned, in view of the

¶31

additional material that has been produced in these
proceedings by the parties, by consent of the parties

¶32

including the parties who have applied for
intervention, the appeal and writ petition are
disposed of in the following terms:-

¶33

¶34

1.The order dated 28.9.2007 passed in Appeal

¶35

no.15 of 2006 is set aside. That appeal is remitted
back to the Tribunal for denovo consideration and
decision in accordance with law.

¶36

2.Parties shall be at liberty to produce

¶37

additional material before the Tribunal.

¶38

3.The Tribunal shall decide the appeal as

¶39

expeditiously as possible, in any case within a period
of six months from the date on which writ of this
order is served on the Tribunal.

¶40

4. The parties who have applied for permission

¶41

to intervene in these proceedings shall be at liberty
to apply before the Tribunal for either to be joined
as parties in the appeal or for permission to
intervene.

¶42

5.The interim order which is presently
operating in Appeal no.266 of 2008 shall continue to

¶43

¶44

operate during the pendency of the proceedings before
the Tribunal.

¶45

Chamber summons no.163/09 in Writ petition

¶46

no.2150/08 is also disposed of.

Gustad Rashid Irani v. P.L.Salve and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gustad Rashid Irani v. P.L.Salve and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil K.Darade Vs the Bombay Mun.Corpn.of Greater Bombay

Mrs. Genevieve a. Machado Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepak Vishwanath Dhuri and 6 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

S.v.Jadhav and Ors. Vs Coastal Engineer New Ferry and Ors.

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai Vs Tariff Authority for Major Ports and Ors.

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai Vs the Tariff Authority for Major Port and Anr.