Dismissed

Shri. Rajendra Shinde v. the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, Rahatani and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Apr 2015RPW/48/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge court rejected a revision petition in a writ matter, finding no excuse for the petitioner's failure to produce previously available documents. The court directed the continuation of protection granted by the Apex Court for four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Review Petition rejected; direction for protection extension for four weeks granted.

Shri. Rajendra Shinde Vs the Pimpri Chinchwad… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2015)

rpwst11329

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION ST.NO.11329 OF 2015 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.11916 OF 2013

¶5

Rajendra Shinde
vs.
The Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation and others

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Shri Ajay Panicker i/b Mr.Ajay Law Associates for
the petitioner

¶9

Mr.Deepak More for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶10

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 A.K.MENON, JJ.
 DATE : APRIL 22, 2015

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1Review of Judgment and Order dated 16th February
2015 is sought on the ground that the petitioner
wants to rely upon certain documents which were not
placed before this Court when the Writ Petition was
heard and disposed of. After having perused the
Review Petition, we find that there is absolutely no
reason set out as to why the said documents which
were admittedly available to the Review Petitioner
at all relevant times were not produced before this
Court in the Writ Petition. We must note here that
the Writ Petition was firstly placed before this
Court on 18th December 2013. Thereafter, from time to
time, the Writ Petition appeared before this Court
on several dates. The Review Petitioner changed his
Advocate. Adjournment was granted to the Review
Petitioner on several occasions.

¶13

¶14

rpwst11329

¶15

2Therefore, no case is made out for entertaining
this Review Petition. Accordingly, the Review
Petition is rejected.

¶16

3On the prayer made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, we direct that the protection
granted by the Apex Court will continue to operate
for a period of four weeks from today.

¶17

(A.K.MENON,J.)

Shri. Rajendra Shinde v. the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, Rahatani and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Rajendra Shinde v. the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, Rahatani 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

Shri. Dhamendra Jayantilal Shah and Ors. Vs Nashik Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shri. Manharlal Hathichand Vora Vs Nashik Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shrirang Yadavrao Waghmare Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Anil Ramchandra Hariname Vs Rohini W/O Anil Hariname

Ramakant S. Bhattad and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Ramakant S. Bhattad and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.