The High Court disposed of an appeal and a civil application concerning a Notice of Motion for injunction. The court observed that successive adjournments of an urgent ad interim application without hearing it on merits amounts to a refusal of relief. The appeal and application were disposed of.
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.
(1) (7) AOST 27245/15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Amk
APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 27245 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO. 27248 OF 2015
Pandit Ramchandra Dive .. Appellant
Vs.
Deepak Pandit Dive .. Respondent
Mrs. Sulbha Arun Dhamale for the Appellant. None for the Respondent.
CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATE : 8 th OCTOBER, 2015.
P.C.
1. Rule. Made returnable forthwith.
(2) (7) AOST 27245/15
filed. Without an application of the appellant/plaintiff the hearing of the ad interim application was adjourned to 18.09.2015.
(ROSHAN DALVI J.)
(3) (7) AOST 27245/15
C E R T I F I C A T E
“I certify that this Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Order.”
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order appearing to refuse ad interim relief by successive adjournments warrants interference on appeal.
Pandit Ramchandra Dive
Deepak Pandit Dive
Roshan Dalvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
