Majid a. Oomerbhoy v. Afzal S. Oomerbhoy and Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
Single judge of Bombay HC condoned a fourteen-day delay in filing a notice of motion and issued the motion absolute.
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.
NMA51-18.7
1/1
PNP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.51 OF 2011 IN APPEAL (LODG.) NO.311 OF 2010 IN JUDGE'S ORDER NO.393 OF 2009 IN ARBITRATION SUIT NO.152 OF 1991
Majid A. Oomerbhoy ..Appellant. versus Afzal S. Oomerbhoy and others ..Respondents. and Nadeem M. Oomerbhoy ..Applicant.
Ms. Deepti Panda with Ms. Jyoti A. Ghag i/b Thakore Jariwala & Associates for the Appellant.
Ms. Aditi M. Prabhu i/b Desai Desai Carrimjee & Mulla for Respondent No.3.
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, AND S.C.GUPTE, JJ.
18 July 2013.
P.C. :
There is a delay of fourteen days in filing the Appeal which has been satisfactorily explained. We condone the delay and make the Motion absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
(S.C. Gupte, J.)
Majid A. Oomerbhoy
Afzal S. Oomerbhoy
Nadeem M. Oomerbhoy
D.Y. Chandrachud
S.C. Gupte
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court