Allowed
Kasare Education So and Anr. v. Pundalik Sitaram Desale and Ors.
Bombay HCCA/3116/2008
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE…
What the court decided
AI extract
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
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
69. CA/3116/2008
--------------------------------------------------
Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or
Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s
or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders
Mr. Rajesh Pardeshi,
Adv., for Mr. S.V.Gangapurwala,
Adv., for the applicant.
CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.
DATE: 13/7/2009
P.C.:-
1.Heard learned Counsel. In a trust matter
respondent no.1 is sought to be deleted as she is
reported to be dead. The request to delete the
said respondent from the array of the respondents
allowed. Application (CA No.3116/2008) allowed.
2.Heard Counsel. There is delay of 13 days
in causing to file the appeal. It is sufficiently
explained. There is no deliberate attempt on the
part of the appellants to sabotage the order.
2
Delay is condoned. Application (CA No.10465/2005)
allowed.
(K.U.CHANDIWAL)
JUDGE
agp/ca3116-08
Mr. S.V.Gangapurwala
K.U.CHANDIWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court