Disposed

Pralhad Kamlakar Worlikar v. Raghunath Shravan Halya Alias Nakhawa Alias Worlikar and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Nov 2011NMA/2993/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Note of Motion sought condonation of delay of 311 days to appeal against a dismissal of a Revocation Petition. The Court, noting the petitioner's advocate failed to argue matters on prior adjournments, rejected the delay excuse and disposed of the motion.

What did the court decide?

Notice of Motion is disposed of with no order as to costs.

Pralhad Kamlakar Worlikar Vs Raghunath Shravan Halya… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 nma2993.11.sxw

¶2

ssm

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2993 OF 2011 IN APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 595 OF 2011 IN REVOCATION PETITION NO. 46 OF 2009 IN MISC. PETITION NO. 60 OF 2004

¶4

Pralhad Kamlakar Worlikar

¶5

....Appellant.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Raghunath Shravan Halya Alias Nakhawa Alias Worlikar & Ors.

¶8

...Respondents.

¶9

Mr. S. Mishra i/by Mr. A.M. Saraogi for the Appellant. None for the Respondents.

¶10

CORAM :- D.K DESHMUKH AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE :- 17 NOVEMBER, 2011.

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

This is a Notice of Motion taken out for condonation of delay.

¶13

Delay is of 311 days. In order to find out whether there is any prima facie case in favour of the Appellant, we heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant on the merits of the Appeal. This Appeal is directed against the order dated 1 October 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

¶14

2 The Revocation Petition No. 46 of 2009 was before the Court. It

nma2993.11.sxw

ssm

was on the board of the Court for final hearing. On 13 occasions every time the matter was adjourned at the instance of the advocate. On 1 October 2010 when the matter was before the learned Single Judge, again adjournment was sought. The learned Single Judge refused to adjourn the matter, the advocate refuse to argue the matter and therefore, Revocation Petition was dismissed. The advocate for the Petitioner refused to argue the Revocation Petition and therefore, the learned Single Judge concluded that the Petitioner is merely interested in prolonging the proceedings and dismissed the Revocation Petition.

¶19

3 In our opinion the course adopted by the learned Single Judge is perfectly right and that is the only course of action available to the Court in view of the peculiar attitude adopted by the Advocate. No useful purpose therefore will be served by condoning the delay.

¶20

4 Notice of Motion is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)

Pralhad Kamlakar Worlikar v. Raghunath Shravan Halya Alias Nakhawa Alias Worlikar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pralhad Kamlakar Worlikar v. Raghunath Shravan Halya Alias Nakhawa Alias Worlikar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

1. Suresh J. Thanawala, Bombay. and Another. Vs 1. Union of India, Mumbai and Two Others.

Suresh J. Thanawala and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

1. Suresh J. Thanawala, Bombay.and Another. Vs 1.UNION of India,Mumbai and Two Others.

Larence Desa and 3 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Rajdeep Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Solar Readymade Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Pralhad Kamlakar Worlikar Vs Raghunath Shravan Halya Alias Nakhawa Alias Worlikar and Ors.