The High Court of Judicature at Bombay rejected the respondent No. 1's prayer for a four-week stay of the judgment's operation in Appeal No. 126 of 2010, finding no justification for such a stay.
The prayer for stay of operation of the judgment is rejected.
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.
app126-10
1
upa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO. 126 OF 2010 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.378 OF 2009 IN
SUIT NO. 1526 OF 2005 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 615 OF 2010 IN
APPEAL NO. 126 OF 2010
Smt.Aruna Vimalkumar Garg and another ).. Appellants
Versus
Dani Sadan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. ) and others ).. Respondents
Mr.Sanjay Udeshi i/b Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for the Appellants. Mr. Hamid Kadiani i/b M/s ALMT Legal for Respondent No.1. Mr. P.K. Samdani, Senior Advocate, i/b M/s.Kishore Thakordas & Co. for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2010
P. C. :
After the pronouncement of the judgment, learned counsel for respondent No.1 prays for stay of operation of this judgment for four weeks in order to have further recourse in accordance with law.
app126-10
2
upa
CHIEF JUSTICE
DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the prayer for stay of operation of the judgment should be granted.
Smt. Aruna Vimalkumar Garg and another
Dani Sadan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and others
MOHIT S. SHAH
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
