Disposed

Sumaira Abdulali v. Union of India

Bombay HC1 Dec 2009PIL/182/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay clarified that its order dated 9th July 2009 did not dispose of Writ Petitions 8763 and 6151 of 2005, as they involved distinct facts or questions not dependent on a specific section of the Act. The order was corrected and cases listed.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 9th July 2009 clarified; writ petitions 8763 of 2005 and 6151 of 2005 to be listed for hearing.

Sumaira Abdulali Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 182 OF 2007

¶4

Sumaria Abdulali Versus Union of India and others.

¶5

... Petitioner

¶6

... Respondents

¶7

Mr. Rohan Cama i/by M/s. JMB Partners for the petition in PIL 182/07. Mr. A.H. Palekar, `A' Panel Counel for the State.

¶8

Mr. N.H. Seervai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rahul Chitnis and Mr. Nimish Kothari i/by Mr. Nanu Hormasjee for the petitioner in W.P. No.8763 of 2005.

¶9

Mr. F.E. D'Vitre, Senior Advocate with Mr. V.R. Dhond i/by M/s. Crawford Bayley & Co. for the petitioner in W.P. No.6151 of 2005.

¶10

Ms. Rutuja Ambekar for the applicant in C.A. No.18145 of 2008 and 18759 of 2008

¶11

Mr. N.D. Sharma for the Union of India.

¶12

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶13

DATED : 1ST DECEMBER, 2009

¶14

P.C.

¶15

This praecipe has been moved by the applicant averring that in the

¶16

order dated 6th July, 2009, in the title, the writ petition Nos.8763 of 2005 and Writ Petition No.6151 of 2005 have been noticed but in fact,

¶17

all cases have not been disposed of. The Writ Petition No.8763 of 2005

¶18

and Writ Petition No.6151 of 2005 involve different questions of law or

¶19

different facts and they were not depending upon the implementation of section 6(b) of the Act.

¶20

This position is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the non-applicants. Therefore, we clarify that Writ Petition No.8763 of 2005 and Writ Petition No.6151 of 2005 which are mentioned in the order should not be deemed to have been disposed of vide order dated 9th July, 2009. The order is corrected to that extent. Memo of the order will be amended accordingly as it deals primarily with Public Interest Litigation No.42 of 2007 and Public Interest Litigation No.182 of 2007. If any other person is aggrieved because of the fact that the petitions have not been properly clubbed and consequently, could not be disposed of by the order passed, they are at liberty to file such application.

¶21

Praecipe is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶22

Writ Petition No.8763 of 2005 and Writ Petition No.6151 of 2005

¶23

be listed in normal course.

¶24

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶25

S.C. DHARMADHIKARI J.

Sumaira Abdulali v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumaira Abdulali v. Union of India

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

Vidyadhar Moreshwar Kulkarni Vs the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Ajay Madhusudan Marathe Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vidyadhar Moreshwar Kulkarni Vs the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Charanjeet Singh Chanderpal Alias Chander Kumar Kishan Gehi Vs Union of India and 10 Ors.

Mrs Rita Subhash Shah Vs Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Siddharth S Kulkarni Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Chairperson Maharashtra State Vs Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra

Vivek S. Kundalkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Cinemax India Ltd. Vs the Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd.

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs Diwalkar Engineers Ltd. and Ors.

Famous Cine Laboratories and Studios Ltd., Vs M/S.Nav Sampati Productions and Ors.

Haresh D. Parmar Vs Pramod M. Ranpura and 4 Ors.

Vivek Ganesh Bhartu Vs Manoharlal H. Ahuja and Anr.

Darshan Group and Anr. Vs Madhavlal N. Pittie