Disposed

M/S Crescent Entertainment and Tourism Ltd., Mumbai through Its Manager v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC21 Oct 2016CA/10917/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad disposed of a review application. The court ordered a correction to replace Respondent No. 2 with Respondent No. 1 in a previous order. It observed that contingencies in clause 6(C) ended upon the withdrawal of a subsequent show cause notice and disposed of the application without costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S Crescent Entertainment and Tourism Ltd… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10917 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6463 OF 2015

¶6

M/s Crescent Entertainment and Tourism Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and another.

¶7

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

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

Mr.S.S.Bora, advocate holding for

¶10

Mr.S.P.Katneshwarkar, advocate for the applicant. Mr.S.B.Yawalkar, Addl. G.P. for the State. Mr.A.K.Muley, advocate for Respondent NO.2.

¶11

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND K.K.SONAWANE,JJ. Date : 21.10.2016.

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

Heard.

¶14

The present Civil Application is filed seeking review of the order dated 20.7.2016, passed in W.P.No.6463/2015. Mr. Bora, learned counsel for the applicant states that in para 6 clause (B) of the said order instead of Respondent No.2, the same ought to be Respondent No.1. Mr.Yawalkar, learned Addl. Government Pleader accepts the said position.

¶15

Mr.Bora, learned counsel further submits that after filing the

¶16

¶17

present Civil Application for review, the Respondent No.2 had issued show cause notice on 25.7.2016. The Respondent No.2 thereafter had sought for explanation and photographs. The same is found satisfactory by the Respondent No.2 and the Respondent No.2 under letter dated 20th October, 2016 has withdrawn and cancelled the show cause notice dated 25.7.2016. As such clause (C) of para 6 of the order dated 20.7.2016 would not survive and be recalled.

¶18

Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 accepts that Respondent No.2 has issued letter to the petitioner stating that the show cause notice dated 25.7.2016, issued by the Respondent No.2 after the order is passed by this Court on 20.7.2016 has been cancelled and withdrawn.

¶19

Mr.Yawalkar, learned Addl. Government Pleader submits that parties would be governed by the subsequent developments. There is no need to review the order as there is no error apparent on the face of record.

¶20

The order dated 20.7.2016, was passed in W.P.No.6463/2015 considering the fact and situation existing as on the date of the order. Clause 6(C) was for a period the inquiry would be pending pursuant to the show cause notice issued and further consequences were laid down if the eligibility certificate is set aside. We do not find any error apparent on the face of record

¶21

¶22

in the said order passed.

¶23

As is suggested that the show cause notice issued subsequently has been cancelled and withdrawn and no further inquiry is contemplated by the Respondent No.2, the efficacy of the said order, more particularly, clause 6(C) certainly would come to an end on completion of the inquiry itself.

¶24

The order dated 20.7.2016 in W.P.No.6463/2015 is corrected to the extent that in clause 6(B) of the said order instead of Respondent No.2, the same shall be read as Respondent No.1.

¶25

With the aforesaid observations, the Civil Application is disposed of. No costs.

¶26

(K.K.SONAWANE,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶27

Dt.21.10.2016. asp/office/Ca10917.16

¶28

M/S Crescent Entertainment and Tourism Ltd., Mumbai through Its Manager v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S Crescent Entertainment and Tourism Ltd., Mumbai through Its Manager v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kshama Renukadas Vaidya and Another Vs Authorized Officer, Idbi Bank Ltd, Mumbai and Others

M/S Vithal Agro Exports Gurme Farm, Thr. Prop. Vishnudas Vitthalrao Gurme Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Balasaheb Raghunath Haral Vs State of Maha and Ors.

M/S v.M.Matere Infrastructures India Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Vishnu Mahadev Matere Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shushrusha Heart Care Centre and Specialty Centre, Mumbai Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Surekha Dilip Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others