Disposed

Shri Anant Vinayak Lotlikar. v. State of Goa, through Its Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jul 2015CA/81/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Bombay at Goa kept the limitation on occupying construction by Respondent Nos. 4 as per order dated 15.06.2015 valid during the pendency of the first appeal, subject to the outcome of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Civil application dismissed; prior implicit stay on occupation remains valid during the pendency of the appeal.

Shri Anant Vinayak Lotlikar. Vs State of Goa, through Its Chief Secretary and 3 Ors. — Bombay HC (2015) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶2

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 81 OF 2015

¶3

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 44 OF 2015

¶5

SHRI ANANT VINAYAK LOTLIKAR. Versus STATE OF GOA, THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND 3 ORS.,

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

... Respondents

¶8

Shri P. Prabhu, Advocate holding for Shri S.S. Kakodkar, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶9

Shri M. Pereira, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. Shri A. Halarnkar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. Shri Kaif Noorani, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4.

¶10

Coram:C. V. BHADANG, J.

¶11

Date:17th July, 2015

¶12

P.C:

¶13

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶14

It is not in dispute that there was an interim order operating in the trial Court, before the rejection of the plaint. The appeal is already admitted.

¶15

By this application, similar interim relief as before the trial Court is prayed. This Court by an order dated 15.06.2015 had noticed the submission on behalf of the respondent that the construction is already complete and the Occupancy Certificate is to be issued. This Court had also noticed that the continuation of the interim relief, which was earlier granted by order dated 20.05.2015, would result in

¶16

CA/81/2015

¶17

¶18

depriving the respondent no. 4, to occupy the construction, although, sanctions have been obtained from the Statutory Authorities. This Court noted the statement on behalf of the applicant that the applicant would not be in a position to deposit any amount in case, this Court so directs. In such circumstances, this Court had refused extension of ad interim relief, while observing that any action taken would be subject to result of the interim application filed by the applicant and the respondents shall not claim any equity with that regard.

¶19

It is now submitted that the same order can continue during the pendency of the first appeal. In such circumstances, the civil application is disposed of, in terms of the order dated 15.06.2015. Thus, any further action taken by any of the respondents in connection with the disputed construction would be subject to result of the appeal filed by the applicant and the respondents shall not claim any equity with that regard.

¶20

C. V. BHADANG, J.

¶21

Shri Anant Vinayak Lotlikar. v. State of Goa, through Its Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Anant Vinayak Lotlikar. v. State of Goa, through Its Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Surendra Naik and Anr., Vs Mr. Valla K. Varak.

Jaison Dias Vs Mr. Ramesh Ramchandra Pawar and 21 Ors.

Shri. Datta S. Nadkarni Vs Mr. Salvador Fernandes

Mr. Beato D'Mello. Vs Mr. Thomas Rodrigues and 2 Ors.

Smt. Maria Teresa Philomena D' Rocha Pegado. Vs Mr. Faustino Matias Francisco De Rego and 2 Ors.

Balkrishna v. Insulkar and Anr., Vs Smt. Chitra Badri Narayan Alias B. Chitra and 16 Ors.