Disposed

Smt.E.S.S. Almeida, Donapaula-Goa. v. the Director General,(Csir) and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Jan 2013MCA/343/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This miscellaneous civil application sought clarifying orders regarding a previous judgment. The Court directed the registry to amend the earlier order to align with the concurrent findings on prayer clauses.

What did the court decide?

The request for a specific reading of the previous judgment was granted, and the registry was directed to make the requisite corrections to reflect the Court's view.

Smt.E.S.S. Almeida, Donapaula-Goa. Vs the Director… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶2

MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 343 OF 2012 IN

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 333 OF 2004

¶4

SMT.E.S.S. ALMEIDA, DONAPAULA-GOA. Versus THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,(CSIR) AND ANR.,

¶5

... Applicant

¶6

... Respondents

¶7

Shri D. Pangam, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri S.N. Joshi, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶8

Coram:F. M. REIS & U. V. BAKRE, JJ.

¶9

Date:3rd January, 2013

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

Heard Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and Shri S.N. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶12

The above application filed by the applicant is seeking clarification of the judgment passed by this Court dated 2/02/2011 whilst disposing of Writ Petition No.333/2004.

¶13

Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant has pointed out that the applicant had sought different reliefs in the Writ Petition and whilst disposing of the said Writ Petition, this Court had made rule absolute in terms of the prayer clause (A) to the petition. The learned Counsel further pointed out that at para 9 of the said judgment, it has been clearly held that the respondents were not entitled to recover the excess amount of Rs.4,018/- as the said amount was not paid on account of any fraud having been committed

¶14

¶15

by the petitioner. The learned Counsel, as such, submits that the rule should have been made absolute in terms of prayer clause (A) as well as prayer clause (C) of the petition.

¶16

Shri S.N. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has fairly conceded that considering the finding of this Court whilst disposing of the above Writ Petition, there is a clear finding curled out that rule is to be made absolute in terms of prayer clause (A) as well as (C).

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, para 10 of the judgment dated 2/02/2011 should be read as "We are inclined to allow this writ petition in terms of prayer clause (A) and (C) and dispose of. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs."

¶18

Registry is directed to make the requisite corrections. Application stands disposed of.

¶19

F. M. REIS, J.

¶20

U. V. BAKRE, J.

¶21

Smt.E.S.S. Almeida, Donapaula-Goa. v. the Director General,(Csir) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.E.S.S. Almeida, Donapaula-Goa. v. the Director General,(Csir) and Anr.

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

M/S. Teracom Ltd. Rep. by Its Chief Operating Officer Mr. Ashish D. Jain Vs M/S. Sojitz Corporation Rep. by Mr. Masahiro Ota

M/S. Teracom Ltd. Rep. by Its Chief Operating Officer Mr. Ashish D. Jain Vs M/S. Sojitz Corporation Rep. by Mr. Masahiro Ota

Mrs. Vanashree Fatu Kenkre and 2 Ors., Vs Dr. Sricrishna Balchandre Kenkre (Deceased) through Lr'S and Ors.

Ms. Maria D'Sa Vs Mapusa Municipal Council through Its Chief Officr and 2 Ors.

The Executive Engineer Works Division VII Vs Shri Saunsthan Devkikrishna Ravalnath

Dempo Properties and Investments Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Director Laxminarayan v. Dempo Vs Dy. Director of Panchayats and 2 Ors.