The Court dismissed the writ petition holding that no interference is warranted in the exercise of writ jurisdiction regarding a discretionary interlocutory order. All questions are kept open for appeal or revision at the conclusion of the proceedings.
No interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction; the petition is dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3090 OF 2009
Shri Prakash Tukaram Walvekar ...Petitioner
V/s.
M/s.Walpat Industries & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr.Umesh R.Mankapure for Petitioner.
None for Respondents.
CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.
MARCH 26, 2009.
P.C.
1. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner.
2. The order impugned in this Petition is a
discretionary order passed by the Court below at
the interlocutory stage. Assuming that there is
some error of jurisdiction committed by the lower
Court in the impugned order, however, indubitably
the same is capable of being corrected at a later
stage. As observed by the Apex Court in the case
of Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors.
: 2 :
reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675, in particular, in
Paragraph 39, that the wrong done, if any, could be
set right and the rights and equities can be
adjusted in appeal or revision preferred at the
conclusion of the proceedings, no interference in
exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted. Hence,
dismissed.
3. Needless to observe that all questions
raised in the present Petition are kept open to be
agitated by the Petitioner in the appeal or
revision to be preferred against the final decision
at the conclusion of the proceedings which will
have to be considered on its own merits in
accordance with law.
A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether writ jurisdiction should interfere with a discretionary interim order passed by the lower court assuming a jurisdictional error.
Whether questions raised in the writ petition should be decided immediately or kept open for appeal or revision after final decision.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors.Referred¶14
(2003) 6 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Shri Prakash Tukaram Walvekar
M/s. Walpat Industries & Ors.
A.M.KHANWILKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court