Allowed

Mr. Raghunath S. Rathod v. Mr. Sanjay Vinayak @ Balasaheb Deshpande

Bombay HC18 Feb 2014CAI/20/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay allowed an application filed by an intervener, Mr. Raghunath Rathod, for impleadment as a party-respondent in a public interest litigation. It directed the impleadment and transposed the applicant to a copetitioner status for prosecution of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Application for impleadment allowed; applicant transposed as copetitioner in PIL No.6 of 2011; process fee undertaking accepted.

Mr. Raghunath S. Rathod Vs Mr. Sanjay Vinayak @… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

cai-20-2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.20 OF 2014 IN

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.6 OF 2011

¶5

Mr. Raghunath S. Rathod

¶6

Mr. Raghunath S. Rathod	..	Intervener/ Applicant.
In the matter between
Mr. Sanjay Vinayak @ Balasaheb Deshpande V/s.	..	Petitioner.
Narayan Rane
& Others	..	Respondents.

¶7

Mr. Prem Kumar Pandey i/b. Dinesh Tiwari & Associates, for the Applicant.

¶8

Mr. Subhash Jha i/b. Ashwini Sawant, for the Intervener. Mr. V. P. Malvankar, 'A' Panel, for Respondent Nos.2,5,6 and 8-State.

¶9

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & M.S.SANKLECHA,J. DATE : 18 FEBRUARY 2014.

¶10

P.C:-

¶11

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we allow this application for impleadment and after allowing him to be impleaded as party-respondent, direct that the applicant shall be transposed as copetitioner in PIL No.6 of 2011.

¶12

2 This order is required to be passed, as our attention is invited to the fact that, after we passed an order dated 4 March 2011, admitting the petition and granting ad-interim relief, the petitioner did not pay the

1 of 2

S.R.JOSHI

cai-20-2014

process fees and allowed an order to be passed for dismissing the petition against respondent Nos.1,3,4,7 and 9 to 50. Now, Intervener/Applicant – Mr. Raghunath Rathod undertakes to pay the process fee within one week from today and prosecute the petition.

¶17

3 The petition is revived against respondent Nos.1,3,4,7 and 9 to 50. Notice as to interim relief, returnable on 24 March 2014. Advocate's notice is also permitted. Humdast allowed.

¶18

4 Affidavit in reply shall be filed by 18 March 2014. Rejoinder, if any, to be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶19

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶20

(M.S.SANKLECHA,J.)

¶21

2 of 2

¶22

S.R.JOSHI

Mr. Raghunath S. Rathod v. Mr. Sanjay Vinayak @ Balasaheb Deshpande

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Raghunath S. Rathod v. Mr. Sanjay Vinayak @ Balasaheb Deshpande

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

High Court on Its Own Motion Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Aarti Industries Limited Vs the Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Dept of Revenue and Ors.

the commissioner of central excise-pune-ii Vs m/s s.g. phyto pharma Pvt. Ltd.

athecommissioner of central excise,mum-iii Vs m/s n.t.b. international Pvt. Ltd.

Eleganza Jewellery Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Income TAX-8

The Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai -Ii Vs B.D. Industries