Short order rejecting a review petition on the ground that the unargued point was not considered as there was no apparent error on the face of the record.
Ad-interim relief granted in civil application no.94 of 2012 will continue for four weeks from today.
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.
1
rpst 9775
ssp
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION ST.NO.9775 OF 2012
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.3508 OF 1997
Office Notes, Office
memorandum of Coram,
appearances, Court’s
orders or directions &
Registrar’s orders.
Court’s or
Judge’s orders.
Mr.Omprakash Pandey i/b M/s.Pandey & Co. for the petitioner
Mr.Anil Yadav for the respondent
CORAM : A.S. OKA , J
DATE : JULY 20, 2012
P.C.:
1Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner. His submission is that
the Advocate who appeared for the
review petitioner did not argue that
the respondent-plaintiff has failed to
serve the notice of demand and
therefore,that point isnot
considered.
2As the point was not argued at
all, this Court was not obliged to
consider the same. There is no error
apparent on the face of the record.
Review petition is rejected.
2
rpst 9775
ssp
3On the prayer made by the learned
counsel for the review petitioner, ad-
interim relief granted in civil
application no.94 of 2012 will
continue to operate for a period of
four weeks from today.
JUDGE
Omprakash Pandey
Anil Yadav
A.S. Oka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court