Partly allowed

K Sudhakar and 3 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Bombay HC3 Aug 2009NMW/328/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court set aside an order admitting a writ petition and the subsequent stay. The matter was remanded to the Divisional Joint Registrar to hear it afresh and pass a reasoned order within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Notice of motion allowed; Writ petition disposed of; set aside order dated 16.04.2009; remand matter to Divisional Joint Registrar to hear afresh and pass reasoned order.

K Sudhakar and 3 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

jmi

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.328 OF 2009

¶5

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.789 OF 2009 .

¶7

Arun M. Naik & Anr. ..Petitioners/ Org. Respdt.Nos.5 & 6. vs. K. Sudhakar & Ors. ..Respondents/ Org. Petnrs.Nos.4 to 7/ Org. Respdt. Nos.1 to 4.

¶8

Mr. N.N. Bhadrashete, i/b. K.M. John, for Org. Petitioners/ Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3.

¶9

Mr. Pradeep Jadhav, AGP, for Org. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4/ Respondent Nos.4 to 7.

¶10

Mr. A.M. Naik, Org. Respondent No.5/Petitioner, in person. Mrs. A.S. Naik, Org. Respondent No.6/Petitioner, in person.

¶11

CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.

¶12

DATE : 3RD AUGUST 2009.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

This notice of motion is taken out by the petitioners for

¶15

setting aside the order passed by this Court dated 17th June 2009

¶16

admitting writ petition no.789 of 2009, and the stay granted by this

¶17

Court.

¶18

It is the case of the petitioners that on 17th June 2009

¶19

when the writ petition was admitted and the order dated 16th April

¶20

¶21

2009 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar was stayed, the petitioner could not remain present since the petitioner no.1 was suffering from acute Vertigo.

¶22

In view thereof, notice of motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶23

Writ petition no.789 of 2009 is taken up for admission

¶24

and by consent of the parties, is disposed of by the following order :-

¶25

(i) The order dated 16th April 2009 passed by the

¶26

Divisional Joint Registrar is set aside. The matter is remanded back to

¶27

the Divisional Joint Registrar to hear the same afresh and pass a reasoned order within 6 weeks from today.

¶28

(ii) Parties shall appear before the Divisional Joint

¶29

Registrar on 10th August 2009 at 11.00 a.m. If any of the parties are

¶30

desirous of being heard by the Divisional Joint Registrar, the Divisional Joint Registrar shall hear them before passing fresh orders

¶31

in the matter. Notice of motion as well as writ petition stands disposed of.

¶32

[ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ]

K Sudhakar and 3 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Sudhakar and 3 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 5 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

Ion Exchange (India) Ltd. Vs the Official Liquidator of M/S. Poysha Industrial Co. Ltd. (in Liqn.)

Kay Iron Works (Satara-Maharashtra) Pvt. Ltd. Vs -------------------------------------------

Kay Bouvet Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs -------------------------------------------

Hastimal G. Chandan and 9 Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Ors.

M/S. Chetas Control Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs Narendra Kumar Sarawgi

S.S. Enterprises Vs Bravo Healthcare Ltd.