Disposed

Nitinkumar Khushalji Pushpatode and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Department of School Education and Sports and Other

Bombay HC16 Sept 2015MCA/934/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order restores two writ petitions dismissed in default following a successful application by the applicant's counsel seeking leave to amend titles and prayers subject to fee payment.

What did the court decide?

Restored Writ Petitions 5958 of 2014 and 7267 of 2014 to file subject to amendment of prayer and payment of additional court fees.

Nitinkumar Khushalji Pushpatode and Others Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1 1609mca934.15.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶3

M.C.A.NO.934 OF 2015 IN W.P.NO.7267 OF 2014(D).

¶4

Shri Nitinkumar jKhushalji Pushpatode and ors. ..vs.. The State of Mah. and ors.

¶5

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶6

¶7

Mr.Nilam Biala, Adv. for the applicants. Mr.N.S.Rao, AGP for the respondents.

¶8

CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND

¶9

P.N.DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 16, 2015.

¶10

Advocate Smt.Biala points out that Writ Petition No.5958 of 2014 and Writ Petition No.7267 of 2014, ordered to be heard together, have been dismissed in default on 22^nd of July, 2015. She states that in the circumstances explained in paragraph no.3 of the application she could not remain present. Counsel had filed Counsel Note and was away from Nagpur. Application is supported by personal affidavit. It is within time.

¶11

Learned AGP has pointed out that two writ petitions have been dismissed in default and hence two applications should have been filed for restoration.

¶12

Though technically learned AGP is correct, as petitions were to be heard together and have been dismissed because of absence of counsel, in the circumstances mentioned supra, we recall order dated 22^nd of July, 2015. We grant oral leave of leaned counsel for the applicant to amend prayer clause and title of M.C.A. accordingly.

¶13

Amendment be carried out forthwith and additional court fees of Rs.20/- be paid on memo of M.C.A. No.934 of 2015 only.

¶14

2 1609mca934.15.odt

¶15

Subject to such amendment and payment of court fee, Writ Petition No. 7267 of 2014 and Writ Petition No.5958 of 2014 are restored back to file.

¶16

JUDGE JUDGE

¶17

Chute.

Nitinkumar Khushalji Pushpatode and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Department of School Education and Sports and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitinkumar Khushalji Pushpatode and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Department of School Education and Sports and Other

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Nagpur Vs Shri Vijay Omprakash Bansal

The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Nagpur Vs Smt. Madhuri Wd/O Devendra Soitkar and Others

Priyanka D/O Ashok Suradkar through Her Father Shri Ashok S/O Shivsingh Suradkar Vs the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee NO.2 Akola and 2 Others

M/S. Enestee Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Nagpur Thr. Its Auth.Sig. S.K. Panigrahi, Chief Financial Office Vs Union of India, Thr. Its Chief Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and 3 Others

Pradip Krishnarao Shegokar Vs Shri. J.D. Bhutange, Director of Vocational Edu. and Training, Directorate, Mumbai and Another

The Public Welfare Societyt Thr. Its President Shri Sanjay S/O Ratankumar Chaudhary Vs Smt. Mithilesh Ambikaprasad Harde and Ors.