In a civil application, the Bombay High Court allowed the application to correct an erroneous note regarding service of notice, disposing of the matter in favor of the applicant.
The Civil Application was allowed as per prayer clauses (a) and (b).
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.
Tapadia RR
1/2 CAW/1637/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1637 OF 2012 IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 9720 OF 2010
Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders
Ms Kiran Bhagaliya, Advocate for the applicant.
CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 04/07/2012
PC:
Heard Ms Kiran Bhagaliya, learned
counsel for the applicant.
Ms Bhagaliya invited my attention to the assertions made in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the application. She submitted that though the respondent was served, the office clerk wrongly made noting on 30.3.2011 to the effect that the notice issued to the respondent on 4.3.2011 returned with Bailiff's report “Notice pasted on the outer door of the premises as he was not found”. She submitted that in fact as per the bailiff's report dated
2/2 CAW/1637/2012
11.3.2011 the respondent was duly served. In view of the averments made in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the application, the Civil Application is allowed in terms
of prayer clauses (a) and (b).
The Civil Application is disposed of.
(R.G.KETKAR, J.)
Tapadia
Respondent
R.G. Ketkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
