Remanded

Crescent Entertainment and Tourism Ltd. Thr. Its Director v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Mar 2013RA/17/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review application, the High Court set aside its earlier order in Writ Petition No. 3133 of 2012 that relied on Rule 130A instead of the applicable Rule 6 and Form D for granting a NOC, restoring the original position pending fresh application.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 10.09.2012 is reviewed and set aside; Writ Petition No. 3133 of 2012 is restored to original position.

Crescent Entertainment and Tourism Ltd. Thr. Its… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 R.A.17.12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 17 OF 2013 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3133 OF 2013

¶4

Crescent Entertainment and

¶5

Tourism Ltd. ...PETITIONER

¶6

 VERSUS

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra and others ...RESPONDENTS

¶8

 ...
 Shri V.D. Sapkal, Advocate holding for
 Shri S.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioner
 Shri V.D. Hon, Advocate for respondent no. 1
 Shri V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondent No. 2 & 4
 Shri V.D. Gunale, Advocate for respondent no. 3

¶9

...

¶10

CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.

¶11

DATE : 20.03.2013

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

1.The present application is filed seeking review
of the order dated 10.09.2012, passed by this Court in
Writ Petition No. 3133 of 2012.

¶14

2. Mr. Sapkal, learned counsel for the applicant-

¶15

petitioner submits that the penalty is imposed under
Rule 130A of the Maharashtra Cinema Regulation Rules
is not applicable at this stage, while considering the
application for grant of NOC. NOC is to be granted as

¶16

2 R.A.17.12

¶17

per Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Cinema Regulation Rules
in form D, however, while passing the order this Court
has not considered the same, therefore, the order is
required to be reviewed.

¶18

3.Mr. Hon, learned advocate for respondent no.1
submits that NOC has been granted subject to terms and
conditions, which are valid as per law. This Court
considered the same and passed the order. Even the

¶19

case of the petitioner is considered pursuant to the
order passed by this Court earlier. According to the

¶20

learned counsel, there is no error apparent on the
face of record. The said order does not require any
review.

¶21

4.While passing the order dated 10.09.2012, this
Court had considered the Rule 6 of the Maharashtra
Cinema Regulations Rule, 1966 and Form D. Thus, the
said order was passed on the premises that the
petitioner would apply to Cinema licence and the said
amount can be adjusted at that time. Considering the
fact that said Rule 6 and Form D was not considered,
the order dated 10.09.2012 passed in Writ Petition NO.

¶22

3 R.A.17.12

¶23

3133 of 2012 is reviewed and set aside. Writ Petition

¶24

No. 3133 of 2012 is restored to its original position.

¶25

5. Review application is disposed of accordingly.

¶26

 Sd/-

¶27

 [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶28

MTK

Crescent Entertainment and Tourism Ltd. Thr. Its Director v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Crescent Entertainment and Tourism Ltd. Thr. Its Director v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Rambhau Pawar and Ors. Vs Dharma Ramdhan Chavan

Ganpati Rangnath Khose Vs Sarangdhar Bapurao Khose and Another

Vasantrao Shankarrao Amrutkar Vs Kishor Jagannath Kasodekar and Others

Murlidhar Vedu Dusane Vs Sanmukhlal Govardhandas Shah

United India Insurence Co. Ltd. Vs Yogesh Gorakhlal Jaiswal Thr Spl. P.A. Shailesh Gorakhlal

Mahananda Kailas Survase Vs Lata Vasant Gupte and Ors.