In a civil application challenging a stay order, the bench held that an interim order in a writ petition must remain effective until the petition is heard on merits. The application seeking to vacate the interim order was therefore rejected.
Civil Application rejected; interim relief remains in force.
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
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2429 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4432 OF 2007
Vyankatrao Sarjerao More and another ).. Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and others ).. Respondents And Bismilla Papa Kazi and others ).. Applicants
Mr.A.A. Khumbhakoni a/w Mr.Pravin Kambli i/b M/s.Shaunak Satpute & Co. for the Applicants. Mr. Uday P. Warunjukar for the Petitioners. Mr. A.H. Palekar, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
CORAM : J.N. PATEL, ACTING C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATED : 15TH JANUARY 2010
P.C.
The original Respondents have moved this Civil Application
seeking the following reliefs :
Any other relief in the interest of justice may kindly be passed.”
hearing of the Writ Petition.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD. J.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the interim order passed in the writ petition should be vacated to allow the applicant to change the user of the land.
Vyankatrao Sarjerao More
Bismilla Papa Kazi
State of Maharashtra
J.N. Patel
D.Y. Chandrachud
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
