The court rejected the petitioner's plea for interest, directing them to pursue the remedy in a civil suit. The plea for cost was also rejected without granting any costs. The petition was disposed of.
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 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 935 OF 2009
M/s. Alankar Interiors
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...
Respondents
Mr. C.B. Thakar for Petitioner.
Ms. Geeta Shastri, A.G.P. For Respondents.
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 22ND JUNE, 2009
P.C.
Pursuant to the order of this court, money which was attached and withdrawn has been refunded.
The learned counsel states that he has also made a plea for interest. In our opinion, it will not be possible for us in exercise of our extra ordinary jurisdiction to entertain such plea. If the Petitioner is entitled, Petitioners may pursue their remedy in the civil suit considering that the acts are by the public servants.
The learned counsel then states that cost should be awarded. Considering that technically there could be some case made out, we are not inclined to grant cost. Hence, petition disposed of.
(J.H. BHATIA,J.)
(F.I. REBELLO,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court can entertain a plea for interest under its extraordinary jurisdiction.
Whether cost should be awarded in the present matter.
M/s. Alankar Interiors
The State of Maharashtra
F.I. Rebello
J.H. Bhatia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
