Petitioner sought remedy against an order, arguing an appeal was pending. The court did not examine merits as it was not a fit case for extraordinary jurisdiction.
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 PETITON NO. 9272 OF 2009
The Mahanagar Cooperative Bank Ltd.
Petitioner
Versus
Sandeep B. Umralkar and Ors.
... Respondents
Mr.B.G. Vaidya for Petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Kapadia with Mr. I.J. Nankani for R. Nos. 1 and 2.
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATED : NOVEMBER 18, 2009
P.C.
There is no order which is subject matter of the petition. However, on behalf
of the Petitioner, the learned counsel has pointed out that they have applied for stay and that appeal is pending. We do not propose to go into the merits of the matter. Prima facie in our opinion, considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and Ors. Versus Union of India and Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 311 more particularly para 50 and 51 of the said judgment and as there were other legal heirs, this will not be a fit case for us to exercise our extra ordinary jurisdiction. Hence, Petition rejected.
(J.H.BHATIA, J.)
(F.I. REBELLO,J.)
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and Ors. Versus Union of India and Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 311Referred¶12
Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and Ors. Versus Union of India and Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 311 · Who else cites this
The Mahanagar Cooperative Bank Ltd.
Sandeep B. Umralkar
F.I. Rebello
J.H. Bhathia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
