The Coram condoned a three-day delay in filing the appeal and listed the matter for admission. The applicant indicated that an interim stay prayed under clause (b) would not be pressed at this stage.
Delay of three days in filing the appeal was condoned; interim stay not pressed for.
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.
46512
Vgm.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 465 OF 2012 IN APPEAL (L) NO. 42 OF 2012 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1597 OF 2011 IN S.C. SUIT NO. 947 OF 1983
Satish Shankarrao Paralkar & Anr. ...Applicants/Appellants
V/s.
Anil V. Ranadive ...Respondent
Ms. Beena R. Pai for the Applicants/Appellants
None for the Respondent
CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J., & N.M. JAMDAR, J.
DATE: AUGUST 21, 2012
P.C.:-
The learned advocate for the applicants states that the respondent has been served with copy of the Notice of Motion through their advocate, Mrs. Dighe, on 26th July, 2012, and that the affidavit of service will be filed within one week from today.
Page 1 of 2
46512
Vgm.
5. Adjourned to 10 September, 2012.
CHIEF JUSTICE
N.M. JAMDAR, J.
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of three days in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Whether to grant an interim stay at this stage.
Satish Shankarrao Paralkar & Anr.
Anil V. Ranadive
MOHIT S. SHAH
N.M. JAMDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
