Allowed

Dinanath Rajaram Ballal v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC28 Oct 2014CAW/1848/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court, in a miscellaneous order, allowed an application seeking amendment of a Writ Petition on technical averments regarding service of an order, directing amendment within two weeks and listing for 10th December 2014.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed in terms of prayer clause (a); amendment to be carried out within two weeks; petition listed on 10th December 2014.

Dinanath Rajaram Ballal Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

caw1848

¶2

¶3

ssp

¶4

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1848 OF 2014 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.4577 OF 2014

¶7

Office Notes, Office
Memorandam of Coram,
appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders
or directions and
Registrar’s orders

¶8

Mr.N.V.Walawalkar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.Amogh
Karandikar i/b Khandeparkar and Associates for the
Applicant

¶9

Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for the Respondent No.1.

¶10

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &

¶11

A.S.GADKARI,JJ.
DATE : OCTOBER 28,2014.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

1Amendment is sought essentially on
the basis of the order dated 11th April
2014. The applicant claimed that the
said order was served to him on 21st May
2014 after filing of the main Writ
Petition.

¶14

2In view of the averments made in
the application, amendment deserves to
be allowed. Accordingly, application is
allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
Amendment to be carried out within a

¶15

period of two weeks from today. Place
the petition on 10th December 2014.

Dinanath Rajaram Ballal v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinanath Rajaram Ballal v. State of Maharashtra 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

Sudarshan Udyog Samuh, through Prop. Ranjeet Janardan Desai Vs the Estate Officer, Mahanagapalika, Kolhapur and Ors.

Smt. Nalini Chandrakant Koli (Bendkoli) Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.

Vijay Shankar Mulekar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Raigad

Shri. Vijay Gunga Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Balasaheb Sitaram Auti Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Vaibhav Dipak Sable Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Divisional Revenue Commissioner and Ors.