Allowed

Cosmos Foundation and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai through Its Commissioner and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Dec 2012WP/1575/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought to withdraw Writ Petition No. 1575 of 2012 to pursue a statutory appeal. The Court permitted withdrawal with liberty to pursue the appeal, noting that the limitation issue must be decided on its own merits.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal.

Cosmos Foundation and Ors. Vs Municipal… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

WP.1575.2012.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1575 OF 2012

¶4

Cosmos Foundation and Anr. :- Petitioners versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. :- Respondents

¶5

Mr. R. M. Nakhwa, i/b. M/s. YKS Legal, for the Petitioners.

¶6

Ms. K. R. Punjabi, for Respondent Corporation.

¶7

CORAM :- A.M.KHANWILKAR & R.D.DHANUKA,JJ.

¶8

DATED :- DECEMBER 12, 2012

¶9

P.C. :-

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioners, on instructions, submits

¶11

that the Petitioners intends to withdraw this Petition and instead, pursue remedy of Appeal against the decisions in respect of years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008.

¶12

We permit the Petitioners to withdraw this Petition

¶13

with liberty to pursue statutory remedy, which, however, will have to proceed in accordance with law. We make it clear that the issue

Page 1 of 3

J.V.Salunke,PA

WP.1575.2012.doc

regarding the appeal being barred by limitation will have to be decided on its own merits.

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent Corporation submits that since the Writ Petition takes exception to the communication dated 9^th December, 2011 Exhibit – 'R', it pertains to Learned Single Judge of this Court. Even so, since the Petitioners intend to withdraw this Petition, we have no hesitation to accede to this request of the Petitioners. Accordingly, this Petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the speaking order for the relevant period has not been served to the Petitioners so far. Counsel for the Corporation submits that she has no instructions in that behalf. In case the speaking order has still not been furnished to the Petitioners, as per the record of the Corporation, that shall be done forthwith to enable the Petitioners to pursue remedy of appeal. We, however, make it clear that, that does not mean that we are accepting the contention of the Petitioners that the speaking order was in fact not served on the

Page 2 of 3

J.V.Salunke,PA

WP.1575.2012.doc

Petitioners. That issue will have to be addressed in appropriate proceedings.

¶24

Ordered accordingly.

¶25

(R.D.DHANUKA,J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.)

¶26

Page 3 of 3

¶27

J.V.Salunke,PA

Cosmos Foundation and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai through Its Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cosmos Foundation and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai through Its Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhu Devandas Chauhan Vs the Assistant Mun. Commissioner

Devkar Vijay Anantrao and 12 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Manohar Maruti Bhandurge Vs the State of Mahrashtra through the Secretary, Ministry of Labour

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I Vs the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Jamshed Noshir Elavia and Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Nemberi Gopalan Vidyasagaran Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.