The petitioner challenged an interlocutory order rejecting an application for adjournment set aside. The court held no case existed for interference under Article 227.
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.
wp967-11.doc
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.967 OF 2011
Mr.Deepak Satyawan Tondwalkar .. Petitioner
versus
Smt.Leela Ramchandra Narvekar & Ors
.. Respondents
Mr.G.R.Naik for the petitioner. Mr.Bobade i/by Aparna Swant for the respondents.
CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, J.
2nd MAY 2011.
P.C.:
. The petitioner challenges the order dated 21st October 2001 passed by the learned Trial Court vide which the application for setting aside the earlier order which refused to adjourn the matter, came to be rejected. The order passed is purely interlocutory in nature. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is rejected accordingly.
(B.R.GAVAI, J)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should intervene in the Trial Court's interlocutory order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mr.Deepak Satyawan Tondwalkar
Smt.Leela Ramchandra Narvekar & Ors
B.R.GAVAI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
